This is an archive of past discussions about Rutgers University. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following is the first archive of the discussion page regarding the article entitled Rutgers University. Archive 2 will began when we approach or just exceed 100 sections.
If official university photographs are considered copyright violations, should that also extend to the scan of the drawing of Old Queen's? While the drawing itself might not be copyrighted, my understanding of copyright law is that the scan itself is. This would be analogous to copyrighting an edition of an uncopyrighted text. I might be wrong but it seems as if the drawing is taken from the Rutgers Timeline website, which would garner the same protection as would an original photograph. —csswasey Tue Nov 23 2004 7:39 AM
The difference being I first got permission in writing to use the Old Queens drawing. You, in your instance, did not. —ExplorerCDT 04:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My understanding is that rote mechanical reproductions aren't covered, since they lack originality. -Sanbeg18:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I find the images in the article rather boring and doesn't give the university justice. We can start with a higher-quality version of the Rutgers logo. The photos of the buildings and sites on campus could use more variety, since the New Brunswick/Piscataway campus alone is pretty big and diverse. (I personally haven't been to the Newark or Camden campuses.) Nothing really to complain about encyclopedic-wise, but many other University articles seem more appealing to read. Also, why not include a map of the campuses? I'm just pitching some suggestions, but if nobody gets around doing it, I may do it when I feel productive.
File:RutgersSeal.gifold seal (reconverted)new seal A few noties on the image in the infobox:
It's the university seal, not the same as the university logo (see examples on [1]). Should the logo be up there instead of the seal?
I've changed the article to use Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, a new copy of the seal. It's 1000×1000. Should I re-render it smaller?
I also uploaded a better copy of Image:RutgersSeal.gif, the old seal that was on the article before, but there is now no page linking to it. Should it be deleted completely? The main reason I didn't delete it is that it shows the Latin name of the university.
didn't it go out of business AGAIN in the 1930s and was then bought by the state of New Jersey? If yes, that should be part of the article as well...
Hwarwick 7/6/04 (class of 81!)
No, it did not. --ExplorerCDT 11:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely not. There is no truth to that, in any way what-so-ever. Rutgers entered into a compact to become the state university with the state of New Jersey in 1956, but even now the Trustees still "own" the school, its land, and any buildings or other property in existence before 1956. —csswasey 16 November 2004
As a followup, the relationship between Rutgers and New Jersey can be thought of as one in which the Trustees own the school and the Governors administrate it as the state university. It's more complicated than that since the Trustees really only legally control everything in existence before 1956, but this is the general gist of things. Legally, it is possible for either party to withdraw from the compact, per the Rutgers Act. Such an eventuality, the chances of which are infinitesimally small, would be nightmarish due to the present-day patchwork of state and trustee owned buildings and property. —csswasey 01:14, 17 November 2004
Redundancy?
How many times does this article have to say that the school was chartered as Queen's College in 1766? Or that the institution was affiliated with the Dutch Reformed Church? Once is enough. It's not necessary to include those facts both in the introduction and in the history section. Darkcore 19:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I give you the DRC repeat. I didn't see where you moved it last week. However, if you can't count, the point of it being established as Queen's College in 1766 is mentioned twice, once in the intro, and in the history section. If you're going to say "eighth oldest institution of higher learning" you qualify that remark. There's nothing wrong with restating this when explaining the history in depth. Is twice too much? Certainly not. Three times? Perhaps. But there isn't a third mention. Methinks you doth protest too much! --ExplorerCDT 19:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The first match generally said to have occurred under English FA (soccer) rules in the USA was a game between Princeton and Rutgers in 1869. The rivalry between the two colleges has persisted ever since and many people consider this to be the first US college football game. However, the rules under which they played have changed substantially since 1869. In fact, at the time, most US university teams used rules which were closer to the soccer rules, although this was soon to change.
On November 6, 1869, Rutgers became the "Birthplace of College Football" when it defeated Princeton, six "runs" to four, in the first intercollegiate football game ever played (the site, then a field, is now occupied by the College Avenue Gymnasium). Instead of wearing uniforms, the players stripped off their hats, coats, and vests and bound their suspenders around the waistbands of their trousers. For headgear, the Rutgers team wound their scarlet scarves into turbans atop their heads. The rules, more resembling those of English rugby football than what developed into American football, included limiting each team to 25 men on the field at once and banning throwing or running with the ball. Rutgers got Columbia University started in the grid sport the following season and in a few years most of the East's colleges and universities were represented on the gridiron.
The Princeton University page is of no help it dismisses the game in one sentence:
In 1869 Princeton competed with Rutgers in the first ever intercollegiate football game, losing 6 to 4. Is it because they lost? Just as Rutgers does for the first baseball match and do the same thing. ;-)
If this page is correct and it was a closer to rugby the link to rugby needs changing to rugby football. The clause "banning throwing or running with the ball" is interesting because that is the fundemental diffrence between rugby and soccer and was the cause of the schism. The first FA rules had banned running with the ball but a player could make a fair catch and claim a mark and if a player of touched the ball behind the opponents' goal line, his side was entitled to a free kick at the goal 15 yards from the goal line.
In looking at the photo, I don't see a ball. When I wrote the Rutgers page, my writing was heavily influenced on publications, books, and webpages which were either sponsored by Rutgers, or written by Rutgers Professors (i.e. William Demarest, Richard McCormick). None of those sources says anything remotely close to comparing the first intercollegiate football game with "soccer." In fact, every source made repeated references to its similarity to "rugby."
Chap standing three from the left appears to have his right arm resting on a ball which is resting on the arm of an armchair. But it may be something else do you have access to a larger picture? Philip Baird Shearer
If it is good enough for Rutgers to draw the line at a comparison with "rugby", it is good enough for the article, (q.v. [2]). Given they were the host of the first college football game, their interpretation is as close to the Gospel truth as far as I'm concerned. The only reason for the debate was a presumptious soccer-frenzied maniac who tried to impose his opinion, unsupported by any research, on the article.
The reason the Rutgers baseball game with Princeton in 1862 gets one line or so, is because there isn't much written or available on it. Secondly, Princeton's wiki entry doesn't say much about athletics, so I wouldn't be surprised that they would only give it one line.
I even put in a smiley because I know that many Americans have difficulty with a British sense of humour! Philip Baird Shearer
Besides, there are not that many who have a clear memory of a Princeton-Rutgers gridiron match up, as the last one happened in 1980.--ExplorerCDT 00:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is a very good source. Thank you. Please have a look at History of rugby union you will see that the crucial point about the Rugby game "is a fine disregard for the rules as played in his time [at rugby school], first took the ball in his arms and ran with it". To be a descendent of the Rugby game, running with the ball in hand is the key. It seems from the description on this page and the description of the game's rules on the interesting page link you have provided that the game "banning throwing or running with the ball" and "The ball could be advanced only by kicking or batting it with the feet, hands, heads or sides." That would defiantly put it on the dribbling game (or a Pelé called it The Beautiful Game) side of the schism because there is no running with the ball in hand. But I think that a good case can be made for saying that it was neither. That it was an alternative game of football. Which before the FA and the RFU was the norm in the UK as well. The Football page goes into the history of diffrent types of games in some detail. Philip Baird Shearer 02:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, if it involves "dribbling" we might as well say it resembles Basketball. ;-) --ExplorerCDT 02:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah denial...more than a river ;-) The bloke in the picture is holding a round ball. And even the Rutgers football homepage (cited above) says: "Leggett, captain of the Rutgers team ... suggested that rules for the contest be adopted from those of the London Football Association. Leggett's proposal was accepted by Captain William Gunmere of Princeton." Hello?!?! The "London Football Association" invented soccer. Also, it is pretty clear from my research that the rugby-type games were not big in the US until the late 1870s, and got rolling after the game between McGill and Harvard in 1874. The Rutgers-Princeton game was the start of US college football, but not as we now know it.... Grant65 (Talk) 13:52, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Ah! I'd missed that! The "London Football Association" would seem to be a clincher. Did the FA rules OF 1869 allow for 25 men a side? The other stuff about "The ball could be advanced only by kicking or batting it with the feet, hands, heads or sides." would seem to be consistent with the Early FA rules of 1863, as stated on the Football page " a player could make a fair catch and claim a mark and if a player of touched the ball behind the opponents' goal line, his side was entitled to a free kick at the goal 15 yards from the goal line."Philip Baird Shearer 15:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If Rutgers officially refers to it as derived from "rugby" and the historical resources in their libraries and archives point to it as such (which I have reviewed), it won't be changed, and I will continue to revert any attempts to do so until the powers that be (at Rutgers) officially say otherwise. --ExplorerCDT 11:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why is Rutgers supposed to be the only authority on Rutgers? We might as well just refer people to official web pages and do away with Wikipedia articles altogether.
And you are only presenting part of what "Rutgers" says, namely that the rules were derived from rugby. As discussed above the Rutgers football site contradicts itself by also saying that the rules came from the English FA, which invented soccer.
As a compromise can I suggest that no reference to rugby or soccer is made in the article? Grant65 (Talk) 14:50, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Should we take that as a "no"? i think it's safe to say that at least three Wikipedians think the reference to rugby should be qualified and soccer should also be mentioned. So does "Princeton", if the The Daily Princetonian is anything to go by:
"What seems like the most elementary part of the game to many observers — carrying the ball — did not even exist. The oblong ball had to be moved down the field by batting at it, kicking it, or any other means one could muster. It is often described as having "rugby-like" rules, but the game was more like soccer.
Will you now agree that the reference to "rugby" should be qualified and soccer should also be mentioned? Grant65 (Talk) 04:29, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Poll on football content
Under the dispute resolution process specified at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, I am proposing a poll, advertised at Wikipedia:Current_surveys, on the description of the 1869 football game in this article. Under the guidelines of the dispute resolution process, I am now asking how the poll should be conducted:
What questions should be asked?
What will the possible answers be?
Where a question has three or more possible answers, are people allowed to select more than one answer?
When is the deadline?
How will the survey be totalled?
Will there be a summary of arguments, or a series of mini-essays, or some other way to inform users prior to the survey?
You are so going to regret going through with such a proposal. I'll take your challenge because I know I can prove you wrong (substantive primary evidence that you will compel you to change your precious football article (something I've not really cared about much anyway)). When you don't win will you finally give it up?
Here is my counter to your challenge.
Your questions:
1.) What questions should be asked?
Just one: "Was the game that gave birth to College Football played by Rutgers and Princeton (then the College of New Jersey) on 6 November 1869 more closely related to rugby, soccer, a combination of both, or some other sport entirely?"
OK.
2.) What will the possible answers be?
Answers: A.) Rugby, B.) Soccer, or C.) A combination of the two or D.) some other sport entirely.
OK.
3.) Where a question has three or more possible answers, are people allowed to select more than one answer?
No. A combinatory answer is provided in option C.
OK.
4.) When is the deadline?
Make it one week (7 days) of discussion, like discussion for those who request administration, etc. See below, Question 6.
How about one week from 00:00 UTC Monday November 22?
5.) How will the survey be totalled?
How do you recommend? Just a simple adding up of who falls on which side.
Whichever one of the options gets a simple majority. In the event of a tie, a run-off, using the same method.
6.) Will there be a summary of arguments, or a series of mini-essays, or some other way to inform users prior to the survey?
Forensic debate. We will agree on a date to begin the survey, before that debate we will research and write our arguments in the form of an essay (no more than 2000 words—footnoting not counting against that total). Once the day of the "survey", we will post our essays. After a full 24 hours, you and I post one, up-to-800-word rebuttal only to the materials contested, avoiding repetious restatement of the argument, in each other's essays. Then, let the survey participants decide the question based on the essays, without commentary.
OK; 300w-500w should be more than enough for me on both occasions, but 2000w is fine if you want to do that. The "essay" to be posted by 00:00 UTC, Saturday November 27; the rebuttals by 00:00 UTC Monday November 29.
After this, we should bury the hatchet, accept the result. No need to take this any further. You've taken it too far already. —ExplorerCDT 00:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I will never regret the truth being revealed, even if I am proved wrong :-) If you have "substantive primary research" which shows that it was the rules of Rugby School that the 1869 game was based on, and notThe Football Association, I think you should give a précis — fully referenced — of that now and save yourself future trouble. Please bear in mind that — regardless of what is claimed, Rugby School's version of football, which was the only kind of "rugby" in 1869 — allowed full handling of the ball and running while carrying it, something which does not seem to have been the case in the Rutgers v. Princeton game. Grant65 (Talk) 10:23, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
My answers to your suggestions regarding the poll are above.Grant65 (Talk) 05:05, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Can we do it a week after that? If you're American, you'll recognize that this coming week is Thanksgiving. Given the amount of travel I have, I wouldn't be able to get anything done by then. My Thanksgiving week is packed, especially since I have a 3-day work week to pack with five-days work. However, the week after, works fine, Perhaps starting December 3rd with posting of essays? --ExplorerCDT 05:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How about 23:59 UTC Friday December 3 for the inital posting and 23:59 UTC Sunday December 5 for the rebuttal? Also, would you mind if we put a notice in the article itself to say that the passage is disputed, and mentioning this page? Grant65 (Talk) 07:50, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Well, we are a little late, but better late than never. A basic argument by me is at Rutgers University: debate on football content. I've found some interesting details in the course of researching it. I'll give ExplorerCDT a week to respond. Grant65 (Talk) 14:55, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
---
Why bother looking up historical rules of soccer or (more difficult) the rules that Rutgers used in 1869 when we can find the first game of American football by working backward from the present? All American football played today goes back to the Intercollegiate Football Association, which formed in 1876 to play the rugby of the time, or their version of it. The instigator was Harvard, which had been freshly introduced to rugby by McGill in 1874 and itself introduced the game to Yale in 1875; the other members of the league were Yale, Columbia, and Princeton. Wesleyan, Stevens IT, and Penn joined soon afterward. Rutgers was not an original member and its rules did not appear to influence the Harvard-based game; presumably Rutgers even had to abandon its rules to join the league. Perhaps it would be easier to find a comment in the Rutgers paper or in a thorough American football history about Rutgers' switch of the rugby rules that would confirm that they had not been playing rugby in 1869.
As you may have gathered from the above discussion, I wrote an essay about such matters, which was at a subsidiary page, until that was recently deleted. The most important content from that page is now at History of American football, which I recommend.
Anyway, two points stand out. (1) "Football", around the English-speaking world can mean a variety of different but related games and that was even more the case in 1869. People at the time did not make much of a distinction between soccer, rugby or whatever. It was all "football" and the same teams were capable of playing what we would now consider to be totally different games. (2) The game between Rutgers and Princeton was the first recored game, of any kind of "football", between two American colleges; it led to other intercollegiate games and clearly had an influence on the future course of US college football, regardless of the rules that were used in 1869. Grant65 | Talk04:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1993 WTC bombing
In the book "The New Jackals," among other written and primary sources, I have heard of only a Nidal Ayyad as the only suspected terrorist in the 1993 WTC plot that had a background with Rutgers. Ramzi Yousef, according to the written works that I've seen, was never a student at Rutgers. -written by a current Rutgers student
Ramzi Yousef was enrolled in two classes, there are alumni and faculty who remembered that experience, and there was a brief article detailing such in the alumni magazine in the mid-1990s. I had forgotten Ayyad when compiling the alumni section of the article. And you are just a student now, not a purported expert as you mentioned in your recent edits. If you were familiar with reviews of the book, many "experts" actually detracted Simon Reeve's work as being inadequately researched.
Further, I'd encourage you to write an article on Nidal Ayyad as there is none currently.
I orginally made the edit and this post above anonymously. Now, I have registered to continue the discussion.
The FBI believes that Yousef's entry to the United States on 1 September 1992 was his first experience on American soil; however, there have been unconfirmed reports submitted to the Diplomatic Security Service that Yousef may have traveled to the United States before then.
I believe that it is very unlikely, given the fact that Yousef carried out the WTC bombing on 26 Feb 1993, that he would have bothered to enroll in classes at Rutgers (which probably would have started in the first few days of September). Moreoever, Yousef is known to have been trained in explosives at camps in Afghanistan and did pursue higher education in the UK; he also arranged for bomb making manuals to be sent to him in the United States. I am fairly sure that someone like Yousef woudl not benefit much from a few classes at Rutgers. I too have spoken to a faculty member, but only about Ayyad; no mention was made of Yousef.
This could be an honest mistake of the faculty members or alumni magazine reporters which you had mentioned. You may know that books on terrorism are hotly debated as many sources are confidential personal interviews; however, I know of counter-terrorism officials from the NY/NJ metro area who reference this work. As for my claiming to have been an expert- I cannot exactly recall the wording that I had used, but if I did use such words it was clearly an exaggeration of my research interests and I apologize for misrepresenting myself. I am very interested in your sources, and I would appreicate it if you could e-mail me personally with some further information. Thank you for your response.
Fight song/athletics
The song that is listed as the Fight Song is actually the Fight Chant, which comes in the middle of the actual song. The Fight Song is a song called "The Bells Must Ring." Lyrics can be found here: The Bells Must Ring. Also, because Rutgers is in the Big East conference, it is rare that they ever play Princeton or Cloumbia in any major sport. Kevcowiffle20:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
On the Banks of the Old Raritan (speculation)
I noticed the lyrics "On the banks of the old Raritan, my boys,
where old Rutgers ever more shall stand,
For has she not stood since the time of the flood,
On the banks of the old Raritan", which has piqued my curiosity. I thought for some time that the word "flood" might refer to some historical flood (after all, Hurricane Floyd caused a pretty big Raritan flood that reached up to Johnson and Johnson property, and the Tavern of the Red Lion was on what is now J and J turf), but I mulled the term a bit more, and thought that the word might refer, instead, to the biblical Flood. Nonetheless, this is only speculation, and I do not know what flood, if any, the author of the song was referring to. 209.92.89.2621:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but...
I'm sorry, I just feel the need to blurt this out loud. NEW BRUNSWICK'S CITY HALL IS A BUNCH OF EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSERS. You heard that correctly. It uses eminent domain to trash and redevelop historic properties left and right without bothering to consider architectural value or the value of the properties to their neighbors. Even when it does consider such values, it's just a show trial before the execution. Recently, a small patch of properties, which is not dangerous, which is in reasonably decent condition, which serves the students of Rutgers okay, behind the New Brunswick train station, has been declared blighted and deemed a redevelopment area. NJ has too liberally written a redevelopment law, and someone needs to drive it through City Hall's collective thick skulls that redevelopment is something to be done with RESTRAINT and CAUTION. (End of rant.) 165.230.149.16423:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
While I find the caption on the picture of the football team amusing — "Rutgers football game, lost as usual by the Scarlet Knights" — I'm not sure it's appropriate for a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, being a Rutgers alumnus myself, I do think the self-deprecating nature of Rutgers/NJ humor might be quite aptly represented by those words. How do others feel about this? --68.174.87.3317:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm for it. And I don't think it's inappropriate. -Lethe | Talk 18:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm for it too. The Scarlet Knights have a pretty bad record! :) (And I am the son of a Rutgers alumnus, so I have a vested interest in this one!) -- Jalabi9903:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Origin of the name?
What is the origin of the name "Rutgers?" I can't find it in the article.
Named after Henry Rutgers. It's in the article if you look closely. -Lethe | Talk 03:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Rutgers during the 60's?
Were there any large anti-war demonstrations at Rutgers during the 60s? I would think so because Rutgers is pretty much the largest university in New Jersey and during the Vietnam War the student movement was pretty large in the U.S. Maybe some of that should be put in the article with regards to the University's history. Jersey Devil22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Matt Yeager just branched out "tons of useless stuff" which I think should be in this page. I was considering reverting myself, but figured I'd at least wait to see if someone else has a problem with this. All the links to student organizations and faculty are linked off to some other page with an incredibly long name. If I get no response to this, I think I'll just revert it myself. Jersey Devil--18:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the reason why the statement should be qualified is that Public Ivies is a clearcut description... sort of. The phrase "Public Ivies" was very widely publicized by the appearance of Moll's 1985 book of that title... and Rutgers is not one of the eight schools originally annointed by Moll.
The Task Force proposal to merge the universities of New Jersey was defeated. And by the way, I would beg to differ regarding the article's portrayal of students 'overwhelmingly in approval'. There was much debate on both sides but the plan was ultimately defeated and the article should be updated to reflect this.
I do think that some of it needs to be trimmed, however creating "daughter" articles for it is not going to help especially doing such as drastic move without any consensus. I am going to put the newly created "daughter" articles up for deletion. Please discuss any further changes on this talk page.--Jersey Devil22:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It certainly does help; the page is unseemingly big otherwise. You, sir, are the one who has ignored consensus (the page had been that way for months with no objection). I'm reverting, and I think that you might want to take a look at other articles (George W. Bush, United States, etc.) and see how all of them have daughter articles when the information is not immediately relevant to the subject. This is generally how we do things at Wikipedia, AFAIK. Matt Yeager♫(Talk?)05:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
There were plenty of complaints about what you did it was just that no one went to the trouble of changing it back. I agree that the section is long and needs to be trimmed down, however creating several needless daughter articles is not helping. Again, I am reverting this page back.--Jersey Devil08:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is too long. Doing daughter articles is standard practice for universities. -- JJay00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of complaints? Do you have any evidence--any at all--of anyone complaining? Because there's nothing on this talk page about it, and generally, if people are complaining, they're going to do it on the talk page... what exactly are you referring to? Matt Yeager♫(Talk?)06:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I tried to help address this by moving the lyrics of one of the songs to a footnote. Anyone interested in the lyrics then can go to them. Others need not be slowed down then by one song that takes many lines. I did not do that with the other song, however, out of deference to our colleague who thought it best to keep it in the body. See discussion below
The "RU Screw" was a frequently-used term when I attended Livingston in the late 1970s. When I worked at the academic computer center (in the Hill Center basement) in the late 1980s, one of the late night denizens painted a large "no RU Screw" on one of the hallway walls. I haven't been there in 15 years, but I understand it has been retouched many times. There is a nice photo of it at [3]. I didn't take it, I just knew there had to be at least one out there and Google found it. You can find other references quite easily. The Medium, which was Livingston's weekly paper when I was there, has a link to a now-defunct site called "ru-screw.com" (perhaps archive.org has a copy?), and the Targum referred to "the clichéd RU Screw" in an article in December 2003, online at [4]. RossPatterson22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to say who coined it, though. I'm pretty sure the painting was done by one of the systems staff. -Sanbeg23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Branch" campuses?
Is it really correct to refer to the campuses in Newark and Camden as "branches"? It seems that Rutgers' website and all the official literature really want to downplay this and promote the three campuses as equals. I know that coloquially we may refer to them as such, I think it's a bit unfair to imply that they are simply branches of the "main" campus in New Brunswick/Piscataway. Could "branch campuses" be replaced with "smaller campuses"? I think the Rutgers' situation is far different from, say, Penn State, where the "Commonwealth Campuses" really are intended to be branches that feed into the "main campus" in University Park... Passdoubt | Talk22:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The official name of Rutgers on wiki
I think we should change the name from "Rutgers University" to "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey", which is the correct and official name of Rutgers University.
I also agree that the name should be changed to the official name Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.--Jersey Devil01:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
"Katie Worthington, not only an excellent student, but all-around amazing person in general, has also brought excitement to campus through her thrilling athletic performances on the women's cross country team."
- is not a notable fact, must be removed
Which two songs? I think the performing arts section you've been working on the past few days would be markedly improved if it wasn't "deep treble" cruft. —ExplorerCDT16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The Rutgers University Fight Song
March, Men of Rutgers
Down the field today
March to another score
Forward to the fray
Fight, Men of Rutgers
As in days gone by
Fight, For the scarlet flag over the rest must fly.
Keep Rutgers colors to the fore
For they must win so fight, fight, fight
And we'll advance some more to score
The Rutgers flag flies high tonight, alright alright
We'll fling that scarlet banner out
And Rutgers men will fight, fight, fight, fight, fight
The Bells of Queens each victory shout
The Bells of Queens must ring tonight
R-U, Rah, Rah,
R-U, Rah, Rah,
Whoo-Raa, Whoo-Raa;
Rutgers Rah
Up-Stream Red Team;
Red Team Up-Stream
Rah, Rah,
Rutgers Rah!!
and
Alma Mater
The alma mater of Rutgers University is the song entitled On the Banks of the Old Raritan, written by Howard Fullerton (Class of 1872). The lyrics to the song are as follows:
I.
My father sent me to old Rutgers,
And resolv'd that I should be a man [woman];
And so I settled down,
in that noisy college town,
On the banks of the old Raritan.
(Chorus)
On the banks of the old Raritan, my boys [girls],
where old Rutgers ever more shall stand,
For has she not stood since the time of the flood,
On the banks of the old Raritan.
II.
Then sing aloud to Alma Mater,
And keep the scarlet in the van;
For with her motto high,
Rutgers' name shall never die,
On the banks of the old Raritan.
(Chorus)
BTW ... were you in the glee club when u were at rutgers?
Glee club. Yes, for a day, interesting story. Also a semester in Kirkpatrick. When I did a massive reëdit on the article last year, I added the alma mater. The fight song was added later by someone else. Most college pages have at least the alma mater on it. I don't know if some of the big powerhouse football schools have their fight songs on the pages (like Alabama, or Notre Dame, etc.). —ExplorerCDT18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
For a day? Come on ... you have to tell me the story ..........
I checked Yale.
The school mascot is "Handsome Dan", the famous Yale bulldog, and the Yale fight song (written by alumnus Cole Porter) contains the refrain, "Bulldog, bulldog, bow wow wow."
and Columbia
Naked Run
Each year in October, students join in on a Track Team initiation ritual and run while singing the Columbia fight song, 'Roar, Lion, roar,' from the steps of Low Library around the lawns, pass Butler Library, and return to the steps of the law library, naked, surrounded by a crowd [16].
Columbiana: Columbia Songs
and Princeton ...
Old Nassau, Princeton's alma mater since 1859, with words by then-freshman Harlan Page Peck and music by Karl A. Langlotz. The text of Old Nassau is available from Wikisource.
Nassau Hall, to which the song refers, built in 1756 and named after William III of England, of the House of Orange-Nassau. When built, it was the largest college building in North America. It served briefly as the capitol of the United States when the Continental Congress convened there in the summer of 1783.
which are 3 colleges we name in our athletics section. so ... none of them seem to do more than links from my quick scan. (btw, princeton really needs your eagle eye to redo theirs). So ... unless I hear a squawk, I think one of us should turn those two into links. It will streamline the article.
Thoughts?
I'd leave the alma mater up, on the article. Send the fight song to wikisource with a list of other Rutgers songs (if you were a glee club member, even for a day or longer, you'd know which ones i mean). Princeton—which I'll have to take a look at once again—is another issue. It's my first choice for grad school (will start my Ph.D. work eventually), and the source of the women i've dated these past few years...I might have a conflict of interest. Personally, and this may be a bit of Princeton envy...I like the tune to Old Nassau more than On the Banks... PS. When I get to know you, perhaps then I'll tell you my one-day-membership-in-Glee-Club story. PPS. Has anyone told you where Yale got it's alma mater? Yeah, an Nazi German anthem... —ExplorerCDT22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Footnotes
Can anyone figure out how to fix the footnotes? There are multiples, it appears, with the same number .............. Tx.
I decided to perform a major reedit on the article, which I think has been abused over the past year since I touched it last. If anyone disagrees with my treatment, feel free to discuss, I'm open to suggestions. Also will be reediting other Rutgers articles, particularly on the Rutgers-Newark and Rutgers-Camden page...they need a slight expansion. Will be expanding my re-edit to most Rutgers pages over the next few hours, if not days. —ExplorerCDT18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure why you fell that this is your article, but I actually think it belongs to all of us. Please stop deleting my additions to the performing arts section that I began. I had politely asked you to run any suggested changes by me. You did not do that. And I have made changes myself to address your points to the extent that I found them to be appropriate. And I notice that one other person made helpful changes.
You referred to the Rutgers University Choir section asinaccurate. Saying that "Glee Club and Kirkpatrick and the Orchestra were involved in that Beethoven's 9th performance. on 26 July 2006 (UTC). I wrote "I must be missing something ... I did say that "the University Choir joined with the Kirkpatrick Choir, the Glee Club, and the University Orchestra to present Beethoven’s 9th Symphony." Isnt that what you say above I got wrong?"
You never responded.
As to your thought that it is self agrandizing, I believe that it is accurate and better footnoted than much of the piece.
If you have any thoughts for revisions, feel free to run them by me. Thanks.
I do not find the way that, having started the discussion and two of us having come up with something we like, you took it upon yourself to just go in and delete material we thought helpful was respectful.I also feel that you have not taken our perspective into account and try to reach a compromise.
It feels to me that you are not addressing this in good faith, despite my attempts to do so.
The language I had quoted to you in this regard is from the Wikipedia standards, it is not a "lecture" as you took it.
You suggest that this is self-aggrandizing (not sure why that is -- I am not a member of either of those organizations, and have never been. Nor do I find it more so than use throughout the article of the words "largest," "eighth-oldest," "leading," "unique," "nationally recognized," "important contributions," "third best," "60th-best," "first," "birthplace," discussion that it could have been a member of the Ivy League but chose not to join, etc. Plus, most of the material on the entry is taken from the university's own promotional university websity.
You like putting bullshit on the article. I'll continue reverting. Your edit regarding deep treble is aggrandizing a non-notable group, most likely self-aggrandizement. Therefore, I edit it out. The performing arts section I might just do away with, unless i can find a context re: academics, that I can fit it appropriately. But whatever fluff you add, I'll as close to immediately subtract. It's not ownership, it's good sense. And in the last year a lot of bullshit has been added to the article (especially stuff like "punk band guitarist X went to rutgers"...a lot of "who cares" kind of stuff). The article needed and to a certain extent may still need cleaning. —ExplorerCDT02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I have tried my best to reach out to you. Both on this page and on the other page where we have been chatting.
If you call complaining that someone reverts the bad writing about non-notable "me too" subjects that diminishes the content of the article, then fine. When the time comes, and I find enough content to add an academics section, I'll be glad to add a section about visual and performing arts. But there's not enough information at this moment to make a reasonable effort (it may take a few days), and the stuff as you wrote it was cheesy. Sorry, but, I don't care for what you wrote, as do a few other people who told me to take a look at the article and rework it. It's needed it for a while. Deal with it. If "Deep Treble" is so notable it needs to be mentioned, write your own article on Deep Treble. If it's good enough, and the group meets the notable test (IMHO, they don't), we'll see. But as it stands, your addition regarding deep treble, etc. were self-preening and frankly, poorly written. Besides, it wasn't much of a chat. It seems anytime someone gets their nose bent out of joint because something they wrote (and they never examine whether it sucked in the first place) gets deleted and they start quoting rules as if they mattered when they really don't apply. I don't exert ownership, and I'm cutting out bullshit from the article. If it were something worth keeping, I would have kept it. I think I'm more in the right, and eventually I will be absolved. The goal is a better quality article, and I really don't care if your self-esteem is hurt with realizations of your mediocrity. —ExplorerCDT05:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Acts of Legislature
"Rutgers was designated the State University of New Jersey by acts of the New Jersey Legislature in 1945 and 1956"
Does anyone have citation on that? I'm not arguing that it didn't happen, of course, I'm just asking if anyone knows of anywhere that you can access a state legislature record of those acts, it would definitely add to the article if that kind of citation could be found. Metros23217:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I was looking for that recently, the 1956 law (called the "Rutgers Law of 1956") is enshrined and codified as NJSA 18A:65-1 et seq. That is the statutory citation, There's also a legislative citation I'm currently looking for to augment that. Also must find the 1945 law information. I do remember writing about it and citing it in a commentary I wrote for the Daily Targum years ago. Must once again find that among disorganized papers. Good idea. —ExplorerCDT17:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed something with this statement. It's listed in both the 3rd paragraph of the introduction and the 4th paragraph of the "About Rutgers University" section. It seems pretty redundant to use it twice in the article. Should one of them go? If so, which? Metros23220:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
We also mention the dutch reformed church affiliation a few times, but perhaps it's necessary to mention it a few times (two or three at max). I thought so when I wrote it originally. Have to rethink that. —ExplorerCDT20:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
References
Perhaps it's a consequence of the current edit war but there appear to be only two references cited in this entire article. Before I paste a bunch of {{unreferencedsect}} templates all over the place, perhaps some of the more active editors can help alleviate this problem. --ElKevbo23:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Elkevbo. I'm all for references. (If you look at the material that I had added, it had citations.) So for whatever its worth, my personal view is that I think that that would be a fine contribution.
I noted that much of the material that I did not add seems to be more or less what is on the Rutgers website. That may be the reason that the person(s) who made those additions did not include references.
--Epeefleche01:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Nitpicking from the peanut gallery and methinks thou doth protest too much. See section entitled "References and external links" at the conclusion of the article, which—as I read Wikipedia's policies (especially concerning Harvard referencing) on citing sources and considering the entire article comes comprehensively from the few sources below stated—suffices. ;-) —ExplorerCDT02:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
External links are different from references. By my count, there are 2 references in this entire article. There are direct quotes and many alleged facts such as dates that are unsourced. There is a lot of work to be done in this article... --ElKevbo02:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of dates/information that do not need to be footnoted because they are common knowledge (i.e. first football game, etc.). Style manuals tend to frown upon footnoting common knowledge as excessive. If you think common knowledge is a bad excuse (and to some extent it is), you need to ask one question. Is it verifiable with the information given to me? The answer to that question is "yes." The sources for the article are listed at the bottom, and any reasonable person (a very common standard in rhetoric for justification) accessing the sources listed will obtain verification for any detail mentioned in this article. Ergo, excessive "footnoting" is not needed. Besides, I think you're interrupting wikipedia to prove a point. As to quotes, there aren't many. Besides, if you notice, there are more than external links in that category. I cited 5 sources (4 rather thick books, 1 website). You are mistakingly indicating "2 references" when you should be pointing to "two footnotes." There is just not that much that needs to be footnoted. Actually, there is not much more work that needs to be done, and any claim to the contrary is hyperbolic. —ExplorerCDT02:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Common knowledge? Knowledge of Rutger's first football game is common knowledge? I humbly suggest that you need to examine your definition of "common knowledge" and realize that such knowledge is not common in the US and certainly not in the world.
For a good example of a university article that cites its references, check out Cornell.
Again, I think it's more than fair to let this sit out here for a few days before adding templates specifically requesting references. --ElKevbo02:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I find the excessive footnoting of the Cornell article to be distracting, and thoroughly unnecessary, and the effort of someone who a.) has too much time on their hands and needs to get drunk or get laid, and b.) tries desperately to prove they read a lot (which is unnecssarily pretentious). —ExplorerCDT02:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I resent you characterizing my friendly attempts to help this article improve as disruption. I've been very nice and polite when I could have just starting adding maintenance templates to the article or even just deleting material that isn't sourced ("Any edit lacking a source may be removed").
I also resent your characterization of those who have worked on the Cornell article (and I am not one of them; I noticed it when it was being evaluated for FA status) as "having too much time on their hands," "trying desperately to prove they read a lot," and "pretentious." If you're unwilling to properly cite material in Wikipedia, one of its core principles (as in all other scholarly writing), then I suggest you take a step back and examine why you're here if you're unwilling to comply with a core policy. At a bare minimum, you should refrain from insulting those that do adhere to both the letter and the spirit of the Wikipedia policies. --ElKevbo03:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The only thing I've ever seen as excessively footnoted as the Cornell article is a doctoral dissertation. And they only do so to show they read the material and because they're trying to hard to have their work accepted. Academics do not footnote as obsessively as that. Secondly, I'd rather you go through the article and tag everything you'd like to see cited, so you can stop talking in abstraction. I'm willing to cite material, and I think the citation offered is adequate. You disagree. Fine. I think your nitpicking. You disagree. I think you're overzealously demanding. You disagree. So what? If you feel so much about it, go ahead mark up the article. I suggest you get laid or get drunk. Because you take yourself and your work far too seriously, and your reactions are bordering on the symptoms of an addictive psychosis. Furthermore, spend a little of your overzealous psychosis on other university sites as well. Or better yet, all of Wikipedia. Since out of the 1.2 million articles on here, I bet only Cornell is adequately (if not overwhelmingly) footnoted as much as you would so desire. —ExplorerCDT03:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I consider my words so far to not be attacks and actually rather civil. Take my educated concerns about your psychological health and other suggestions for remedies to them as you may, but I have not crossed any lines. As to your insinuation that I have, while you may probably consider it uncivil if the shoes were reversed, I do not. Heated debate is not uncivil debate. To characterize it as such is a mischaracterization in extremis. However, I would based on what I have seen diagnose you as hypomanic and write off your hyperbolic explosions as both indicative of your condition (i.e. as trademark "grandiosity") and probably evidence of an underlying, but undiagnosed intermittent explosive disorder or a temporal lobe disorder. —ExplorerCDT03:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
"Interrupting wikipedia to prove a point"? I think that only point that ElKevbo is proving is that verifiability is the number 1 pilar of Wikipedia. Please take a look at WP:CITE to see why we require citations (note, none of the reasons in there include "proving we read a lot" or being "unnecessarily pretentious"). Simply saying that all the information is somewhere on the Rutgers website or something like that is not enough, a citation must be something more specific than that. Metros23203:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I really don't think you need to be any more specific than I already have been. Besides, Brittanica, Funk & Wagnalls don't footnote their texts, and have referenced things as sufficiently as I have. Therefore, I do not see a need to go off the deep end like ElKevbo would like (i.e. the Cornell article). This article, based on the referencing provided, offers as much verifiability as is required by any encyclopedia. Anyone who wants to verify the facts mentioned can do it on his own—adequately and easily—with the information as provided. —ExplorerCDT03:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
How do we address this problem? Which a number of us seem to be running into? Is there a way to poll, or solicit mediation or some other form of assistance? What would be the most appropriate approach? We all seem to be running into a brick wall.
--Epeefleche16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
First, I would identify what facts/quotes need to be cited. I don't think that there are many, perhaps a dozen, really requiring citation. If you disagree, and think there needs to be 108 citations like the Cornell article (which I emphasize is excessive and pretentious), we'll go through them one-by-one. That is a start. Citation is best when it is a minimalistic art. Remember, earlier in the last century, the avant-garde did backlash against excessive footnoting by writing books without content, just footnotes to prove a point. —ExplorerCDT18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added some {{fact}} templates in the "About Rutgers University" section where citations are needed to support the asserted facts. --ElKevbo15:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Budget
Does anyone think that the budget crisis of NJ forcing the college to slash a bunch of programs needs to be mentioned in this article? Metros23202:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it really notable? I mean, Rutgers has always had funding problems since the 1800s, and every year the state budget comes out there's always talk about budget cuts and retaliatory slashing at Rutgers and all the state colleges. This year isn't at all different from any other since 1956. They pass a budget, administration is upset (I've never seen them happy ever about even a generous budget), and for a few days students hold up a few picket signs. It's standard operating procedure. I don't think it's worth mentioning. Besides, if we get to a day-by-day reporting thing (which was happening with the Save Douglass mentions), it gets hackneyed. When they burn down Old Queens because of budget cuts (as they almost did in 1958 and in the 60s), then we might have something that is worth mentioning. —ExplorerCDT02:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Rutgers-Newark and Rutgers-Camden
We may need a Rutgers Project for rehabbing all the Rutgers-related articles. Several of the President articles I started last year were never finished (things get in the way), etc. I am starting to edit Rutgers-Newark and Rutgers-Camden (which I think should be renamed). —ExplorerCDT19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
For the time being, I am removing the mascot section from the article. This is a complete copy and paste from the introduction to the article on the history of the mascot from the athletics website. [5]. This is a copyright violation, so I'm putting it here for now so that maybe something can be crafted out of it that can be used in the article. Metros23223:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:ScarletKnight.jpg|250px|thumb|right|The Rutgers University mascot is the Scarlet Knight.]]
Since its days when the school was officially known as Queen's College, the athletic teams were referred to as the Queensmen. Officially serving as the mascot figure for several football seasons beginning in 1925 was a giant, colorful, felt-covered, costumed representation of an earlier campus symbol, the "Chanticleer." Though a fighting bird of the kind which other colleges have found success, to some it bore the connotation of "chicken." It is also a little-known fact that the New Brunswick-based broadcast station, WCTC, which serves as the flagship station of Rutgers athletics, had its call letters derived from the word "ChanTiCleer." Chanticleer remained as the nickname for some 30 years.
In the early 1950s, in the hope of spurring both all-around good athletic promise and RU fighting spirit, a campus-wide selection process changed the mascot to that of a knight. By 1955, the Scarlet Knight had officially become the new Rutgers mascot.
Hey ExplorerCDT - here's an example of something that should have been cited. :) If it the source had been cited we may have discovered this copyvio much earlier. --ElKevbo23:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh boy does that drip with the smug "I told you so" condescension. I'd bet, considering Wikipedia by and large is uncited, about 90-95% of the shit on here is copyvio. Probably even half of your work. —ExplorerCDT00:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write that shit about the mascot. Not my concern. As to the rest of wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised if we scratched the surface how quick the copyvios would become apparent, the same, I predict if we examined with scrutiny your work. Do you typically like taking the na-na-na-na-na-na approach to victory just to making a point? If so, you really need to get drunk and get laid, psycho. —ExplorerCDT00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sheesh, I just went back and looked to see how long it has been in there for my own curiosity...[6] July 8 2005 it was added. Metros23223:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Columbia statement
The 4th paragraph of the introduction says:
Rutgers was once widely considered to be Columbia University's sister school given the original names of both institutions: Queen's College (Rutgers) and King's College (Columbia).
This was added in late November 2005 and hasn't really been touched since. It was also added to the Colubmia article at the same time. It was removed from that article about two weeks later saying: "No basis for Rutgers as Columbia's sister school, although both are old and had many interactions over their 250 or so years."
So I wonder if this belongs in the Rutgers article. A. it goes back to the uncited debate. But B. why is that in the article, especially in the lead paragraph? It just feels like it's there to say "Hey, look at us, connected to COLUMBIA!" I'm sure that's not the intent behind it of course, but from an outside perspective, it kind of feels that way. Thoughts? Metros23223:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Most of it stems from the old Queens-Kings connection. There used to be an annual event between the two schools debating clubs that caused that "sibling rivalry" comment. Columbia-Rutgers in debate was seen to be the equivalent as Rutgers-Princeton was in football. But times change and traditions fade. I left that line in there when I did the edit the other day, but I didn't and still don't feel comfortable keeping it in there. As you can see I tried to pare down the fluff around that line. —ExplorerCDT23:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed it since it does seem very awkward like it is. If anyone wants to address the history between the two in the article, they can, but for now I'm removing the statement. Metros23213:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The recommendations of the Transforming Undergraduate Education report were approved in early March, and it hasn't been updated, so I added in the new info.--Epeefleche23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure why Explorer CDT has attributed the above to me, and cut and pasted my name under it, but it is not my entry.
Everyone else ... what can we do to address the problem that a number of appear to be having here? Other than asking for the page to be frozen with the material that I had put in (but which ExplorerCDT saw fit to delete) reinserted, all that I have done is try to disengage from this page for the moment as is suggested by Wikipedia. That, of course, will not address the problem. Any thoughts? Thanks much.
--Epeefleche22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Major Restructuring/Edit 07AUGUST2006
I started restructuring this article during the afternoon hours (EDT) of 7 August 2006 and half way through decided it would be prudent for me to explain my intentions so that no one a.) gets their nose bent out of joint, and b.) so people understand why I'm doing what I'm doing, and c.) so they know what I intend to add/subtract. This may take a day or two.
In addition to adding citations, as has been vigorously argued above (and which I concede is important), I intend to do the following to make the article more comprehensive (currently, and I am to blame since I wrote a lot of it, it's very/too history-oriented):
) Add subsections regarding Admissions, Financial Aid, Student Life, and Undergraduate and Graduate programs.
) Make a few substantial mentions of Rutgers-Newark and Rutgers-Camden just to round out the article, despite it being currently New Brunswick-Piscataway campus heavy.
) Add more to the Athletics section regarding the program today, hence why I placed it in its own section. Will mention, as a point of reference, that alumni are divided between Bloustein-Lawrence's "bigger time" athletics, versus those who advocate smaller athletic programs with the old rivals (Princeton, Lafayette, Lehigh, etc.) and greater focus on academics (The RU1000 crowd). Will mention championships that aren't in revenue sports (i.e. sports other than football, basketball)
) Divisions of the University, I think should be added as a subsection of "About the University"
) Something dealing with the Rutgers University Libraries
I think a Rutgers template may need to be made, to link things like the residential colleges, the professional schools, etc. But that is for another time. Perhaps that network of articles may not be necessary if this article becomes sufficiently comprehensive. The various Rutgers articles (like Douglass College, Cook College, Rutgers-Newark, Rutgers-Camden etc.) need to be worked on. Columbia's set of articles (regarding its divisions) may be an influence, as with Oxford or Cambridge articles (re: residential colleges/institutions). —ExplorerCDT22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Cannon photo?
Does anyone have a photo of the cannon on campus? It seems odd that the "The Cannon War" section has a picture of the Statue of Prince William the Silent and not the cannon. I think that statue photo needs to stay in the article, but it seems odd that it appears to be illustrating the cannon section, when it isn't. So does anyone have a photo of the cannon and have a suggestion on where to move the statue image to? Metros23219:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I added a personal photo to the Cannon War section. I should have made my intentions known, but I thought I would have completed the edit to my liking before anyone noticed. You beat me to the punch. —ExplorerCDT20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Just so you know, I intend to expand the "Around campus" section to include a few more traditions linked to places around the university, like the Queen's Gate, etc. And extend the "traditions" section to discuss possibly secret societies on campus, the mascot and school colors (which arise out of the first football game...they almost were orange). —ExplorerCDT20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
16.2 miles, not 15...hence why the article read "16 miles." Would you like the GPS data for that fact? I've even read the student accounts of the theft about "journeying sixteen miles under the darkness of the late hours." —ExplorerCDT03:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the mileage sign in front of Old Nassau on Nassau Street (Route 27) in Princeton says "New Brunswick...16." 4 years at Rutgers and I don't know where that mile marker you talk about is. GPS from the cannon in front of Old Queens to the cannon behind old Nassau showed the route (George Street to Albany Street-Route 27 South, parking right in front of the FitzRandolph Gate and walking behind Old Nassau) was 16 miles and 1075.8 feet—19.8 feet over 16.2 miles—ExplorerCDT16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you take Somerset Street (which runs in front of Old Queens) in New Brunswick, to Route 27 South—the most direct route—it only shaves off 0.3 miles, for a total of 15.9 miles one-way to Princeton.—ExplorerCDT16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Further, Mapquest.com, even taking Jersey Avenue out to Route 1 South for a few miles, brings it to 16.23 miles total. [7] —ExplorerCDT16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Remember, French Street doesn't end at and turn Route 27 over to Albany Street until at least 5/8ths-3/4ths of a mile from Old Queens. I'll have to check that out to make sure, but if that marker is on French street, it's most likely near a mile away. I know there's a mile marker on the Albany Street Bridge between New Brunswick and Highland Park, but I can't get anyone out there to look at it for at least a day or two. However, I will check into it. —ExplorerCDT20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was a better transition between the history section to the historical part of the athletics section. If you notice, the Princeton University article has their athletics section above their tradition section, so I don't think it has anything to do about stereotypes. While I agree and lament that tradition does fall to the big time athletics, I don't think that comes into play just in how I moved the section to accomodate what I felt was an aesthetic and organizational improvement. —ExplorerCDT01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If you notice, I will be adding a discussion about the dissent of several alumni (and faculty and students) regarding tradition and academics being sacrificed for a big time success in athletics (chiefly football), within the athletic section, which I feel would probably segue well into the tradition section. —ExplorerCDT01:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The Alma Mater and Political Correctness
I have consistently had to revert edits to the article that insert "woman" as an alternative lyric for "man" in the Alma Mater section, which has the lyrics to On the banks of the Old Raritan. As seen by the link on the webpage, the official university text only shows one alteration to the lyrics, (the use of "my friends" for "my boys" in the chorus) and does not show any substitution of "woman" for "man" in the first verse...probably because it doesn't fit in with the melodic line. It seems that these edits derive from people involved in Queen's Chorale, the women's SSAA chorus based on the Douglass campus, because this group of about 20 butchers the alma mater by adding "or a woman" to the line in a manner reminiscent of those pathetic grammar school renditions of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. It is not official, none of the official Rutgers pages that put up the lyrics mentions such an alteration, and if it's based from the Queen's Chorale, it's a tradition of a very small minority that doesn't deserve mention in this article. Therefore, whoever it is out there...please refrain from further attempts to alter the lyrics from their true, official form. Until such time as the university recognizes such a substitution on their webpages and publications (i.e. The Rutgers Songbook), it should remain as is. I suggest that if you want to change it here, you should first direct your efforts to getting the university to make it official first. —ExplorerCDT04:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I don't care what the lyrics are as long as they are properly cited from a reliable source. Simply changing the lyrics such that they are not in agreement with the cited source is dishonest and not in accordance with Wikipedia (or accepted scholarly) policies and principles. If you change the text you gotta change the reference, too. You can't change one without changing the other. --ElKevbo15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the general idea stated by ElKevbo, that citation of a proper source is required, and propose two possible neutral compromises. The first, which I believe to be most appropriate, is to revert to the original text of the song before any changes were made, that is, the author's (Fullerton) actual words. I suggest striking the current reference (on Rutgers.edu), as it seems suspect to tampering, and indifferent to history- it does not even bother to mention the author of the work (an unacademic practice, which my alma mater should be ashamed of). I would sooner believe something off of the football website. The second proposal is to placate the more PC-minded (or perhaps more emotionally involved editors): add a footnote describing the evolution of the song, citing the causes for each change. I'm not a huge fan of the latter for conciseness issues, and believe it's not very encyclopedic (we could probably create a short yet complete article on the song), but I'm willing to compromise on this. MJKazin20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have talked with User:Metros232 a few days about concerns over the size of the page given the scope of the restructuring of this article that I have undertaken. We discussed the idea of splitting up the page if it gets too big. I pointed out that the range of University articles is roughly 40-75Kb, and that the average range was between 50-60Kb for the good ones, one's I used as influences in my restructuring. Right now, as I write this, the article is about 50Kb in total, and will probably add another 10-15Kb of material. It should top out at 60-65Kb, probably toward the lower end of that range.
However, when you reduce the article by eliminating the markup and other coding that is excludable (footnotes, references, see also, diagrams, images, tables, lists, links, formatting, etc.), there are right now, a little over 5200 words, or roughly 26Kb of text. This I think fits within the Wikipedia size guidelines to not merit splitting up the article. The article is roughly comparable in size to articles regarding institutions with which Rutgers has been associated (academically and athletically) in its long history: Cornell, Princeton, Yale, Michigan, Duke etc. Therefore, I think it is appropriate.
In the end, if you think the article is too long, I ask before anyone brings up "let's split it up" to look through the article and edit out some of the lengthy sentence structure, excess verbosity, etc. from the article, and see how much that diminishes the size. After all, the Wikipedia policy in question[8] does encourage us not to be hasty in splitting up an article. Any questions, comments, etc. you know what to do. —ExplorerCDT04:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I asked that this article be protected so that this whole alma mater thing can be discussed on a talk page rather than through edit summaries and attacks on user's talk pages. Please work this out here. I haven't been involved with this dispute, but I've been working on the Rutgers article lately and I'd prefer it if we could produce an article without this kind of revert-warring. So, please, discuss, but be WP:CIVIL and remember other guidelines like WP:Verifiability and reliable sources. Thanks, Metros23223:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! At least one of those who are editing the article to add "woman" to the alma mater has finally begun discussing the issue on his or her Talk page. We're not making any progress addressing the issue but I guess at least discussing it is *some* progress... --ElKevbo23:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should just replace what we currently have with a link. --Epeefleche05:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to revert to put back in the choir and deep treble material that I had inserted, which our friend had deleted without any cogent convincing reason ...IMHO.
Epeefleche: There were (and were provided to you by me)—as you put it—cogent, convincing reasons...1) The material you added was POORLY written, 2.) I stated that the choir stuff needed to be reworked and could be added in the academics section. I have not done so only because I haven't had the time to finish what I'd like to add to the article (life gets in the way), 3.) Deep Treble is a non-notable student organization, one of 700, and I stated to you on several occasions it has no place here, but would be more than welcome if mentioned with other a capella/musical groups on the upcoming "Rutgers University student organizations" article. So, In my NOT-SO-HUMBLE opinion, you really need to relearn how to read because I told you these three things on several occasions and you still haven't comprehended it. —ExplorerCDT08:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
"first intercollegiate football game"
The reference to the "first intercollegiate football game" needs to be changed to something like the "first intercollegiate soccer game." The fact that Rutgers students in 1869 described their game as "foot-ball" or something similar seems to confuse people -- they were not referring to American football, which was not begun until 1873. Instead they were playing Association Football, better known in the U.S. as soccer. (Yes, they had 25 on a side and were allowed some use of the hands, both of which were permitted by the Football Association rules at the time or the students' own modifications.) The 1869 game has nothing to do with American college football today: nothing evolved from it. Rutgers had to abandon soccer and switch to American football rules within a few years to play against schools that actually originated the game that continues to be played today. So the phrase "intercollegiate football" is inaccurate, because it implies American football. (Various apparently official sites[9] make this claim but they are simply false.) Wakonda21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a matter of interpretation not worth arguing. Rutgers, Princeton, and the history books consider it the first intercollegiate football game, despite the heavy comparisons to soccer (btw, it was not completely soccer either). The tradition (and the sport) morphs from this game, not from the Harvard-McGill game as you seem to imply, as it was Princeton, Rutgers, Yale, and COlumbia that set down the rules for College Football in 1873 based on their participation in intercollegiate "football" stemming from this 1869 matchup. (a year before Harvard and McGill met for a Rugby match). If you know the history well, you can trace that football as we know it today evolved directly from the 1869 Rutgers-Princeton match. You'd like this to be a black-and-white issue, and it is not, and because of such the birthplace of college football history is not false as you seem to claim. —ExplorerCDT23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, both of the above comments seem to be irrelevant to deciding the issue, coming very close to original research. Wakonda's citation is one I would normally accept- being a Rutgers alumnus, I've been indoctrinated by that dogma. But dogma isn't necessarily false, as he/she implies (see the uncited "simply false" statement). ExplorerCDT's version sounds plausible, but again, it looks like OR. How about an NPOV citation? MJKazin01:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
In development. Seeking suggestions. Red links are pages I wouldn't mind seeing made, and will probably pick at over time. —ExplorerCDT10:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Should I add a section called "Research" for things like Eagleton Institute of Politics, and other notable things like that. etc. —ExplorerCDT10:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
On this article it says Rutgers turned down an invitation to the Ivy League. I've heard this several times, but I can never find anything concrete about it. I've pretty much come to believe that it's a modern myth, since I can never find anything to back it up. In fact everything I read about the Ivy League makes no mention of it. On top of that, I found this link which somewhat confirms my belief:
I'll have something for you in about a week or so (be patient)... right now I'm away from my notes/files/etc., and a few photocopies of stuff I found in the Alexander Library a few weeks back that I will be citing for that content. There were several newspaper articles from the 1930s to 1950s as well as correspondence, etc. —ExplorerCDT00:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the references until such proof can be determined; this isn't to say it isn't there, but I don't want to see the article have the "fact" or "citation needed" tags on it. If you can find the information, Explorer, then by all means put it up. AnthonyHit me up...03:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The Grease trucks article is notable enough to stand alone as an article and should not be merged. There are many sources throughout the internet citing the prominace of the Grease Trucks. Valoemtalk20:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I Know it was a Different Time, But...
Did Rutgers' Baseball team really lose 40-2 back in the 1800s; 40 runs in a baseball game must be some sort of record
"Biggest football game in school history"
I toned down this phrase and changed it to "first major national football game." I know that a few sports columnists have insisted the Louisville game to be the biggest in school history - and, statistically, it did draw the biggest crowd - but I am hesitant to include subjective hyperbole. Rutgers did complete two undefeated seasons, one in 1961 and one in 1976, and it would seem that the final games of those two seasons must have been notable. The 1961 season ended with Rutgers mounting a 25 point fourth quarter comeback against Columbia (yes, 25 points in a quarter -- that is right up there with the absurd baseball score), and it seems capricious to establish a hierarchy of major games, especially when the Louisville meeting hasn't faded from the hyperbole of headlines yet.
Also, regardless of the two undefeated seasons, there are some who might proffer that the "biggest football game in school history" was the 1869 match against Princeton insofar as it was the very first college football game in known history. This is why using subjective words like "biggest" is just asking for trouble.
There might be an occassion to apply this phrase later. If the 11/9/06 game really does go down as a classic and is still talked about and viewed as a milestone when the dust has settled, this should be revisited. Also, it's worth noting, if Rutgers were to run the table, take the Big East's BCS bid and play in one of the BCS games, that would almost certainly eclipse the Louisville game by any standard.
Today vs Contemporary
I changed the heading "Today" to "Contemporary". Does anyone else object other than the person who reverted it? "Today" refers to "24 hours of time", but the article is referring to events covering several years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
RETORT: I reverted your bad edit for the following reasons: Today also defined in its adverbial and adjectival forms as relating to "this present time or age" or "at the present time; in these days" or informally as "of the present era; up-to-date:" Your definition is restrictive as well as wrong given its usage and context within the article. Contemporary, on the other hand, is wrong in your intended usage, as its denotations include (in adjectival form), "existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time" (The Random House Unabridged Dictionary brings up the example of "Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.") also "of about the same age or date" in addition to its usage, less so, relating to "of the present time; modern". However this last usage can equally become dated. For someone with your high level of education, I'm surprised you didn't first refer to the denotations for these common words as found in any dictionary. Lastly—and for the umpteenth time—please stop fucking up articles on which I've worked with similar unjustified, disingenuous and often wrong-headed edits. —ExplorerCDT04:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm allowed to explain—since you seem to not like the fact that I have been compelled to revert many of your unjustifed, wrong-headed edits as of late—my rationale in my defense. Your response (I presume you're phishing for people to join a prospective RfC, etc.) implying that I shouldn't or needn't respond is disingenuous and presumptuous, but along with "wrong" that seems to be your stock in trade. —ExplorerCDT15:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Today sounds a lot better than using Contemporary, which in general is mostly used in reference to describing art, clothing, architecture. If you take the title "Today" literally then yes it doesn't fit very well, but in this context nobody does that unless they don't have a full grasp of the nuances of the English language.AntiG15:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think either word works very well. ExlorerCDT's arguments against "Contemporary" are accurate but "Today" also suffers from many of the same problems. If I had a better suggestion I'd give it and if I think of one later I'll make the change.
A flagship university is the original, oldest university in a state university system. "Flagship" does not mean "good," it means "oldest in a system." "Rutgers" is not a "flagship university." (If you like, New Brunswick/Piscataway is the flagship campus of the Rutgers system, although Rutgers does not seem to use this language).
The typical pattern is for a state to have a university established around 1870 or thereabouts in the huge wave of university-building that followed the Morrill Act. After the Second World War, there was another huge wave of what might be called college "upgrades," in which existing teaching and agricultural colleges were given university status and became part of a state university system. Because traditionally age is associated with prestige in universities, and because the oldest campus is often the biggest and best-funded, the "flagship" campus is often the best campus in the system.
P. S. For more on this, see [10] which notes in particular:
It was in the context of this massive expansion, then, that the term "flagship" came to be used to refer to the original campus of the system, the campus from which branches were developed or other institutions attached. The metaphor obviously had a naval origin; each fleet has a flagship, the largest battleship or aircraft carrier from which the admiral directs the movements of the entire fleet.
Right. Or, I'd say, replacing a just-plain-incorrect objective description with a subjective, but reasonable and defensible one. Actually I'm guessing that the editor who used the word "flagship" thought it meant the same thing as "leading."
I edited it the way I did because I wasn't taking issue with the idea that Rutgers is New Jersey's leading university. Oops, oh, wait, I mean New Jersey's leading public university.
I detest academic boosterism but on a scale where 10 is an objective fact and 1 is boosterism, I'd say "Rutgers is New Jersey's leading public university" is somewhere around a 3...
In the U. S. News and World Report rankings of "top national universities," if we scan down looking for New Jersey, we find that a well-known private university in New Jersey currently ranks #1 (I'm convinced that U. S. News' ranking methodology includes a die with two H's, two Y's, and two P's which gets rolled once every year to add interest and excitement to what would otherwise be a predetermined outcome for the top three), Rutgers ranks #60, and Stevens Institute of Technology ranks #77. That's probably a meaningful separation.
Having attended both Stevens and Rutgers, I believe Stevens (in engineering and several sciences) is both more comprehensive and rigorous than Rutgers. I don't believe in the USNWR rankings. Stevens' admissions standards are higher than Rutgers (48% admitted Stevens/61% Rutgers, average SAT 1300 Stevens/1205 Rutgers). I admit Rutgers has more money in PR (public relations - paid for by our tax dollars) than Stevens, so the name is more highly publicized (now more so because of football), driving USNWR's rankings. Stevens by the way is now ranked #71 by USNWR, considering that the curricula overlaps Rutgers in only a few areas those are very close.
There's a single Google Books hit on the phrase "leading public university in New Jersey," and the context is "the president of Rutgers, the leading public university in New Jersey." Dpbsmith(talk)18:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello
Dear ExplorerCDT,
You may want to contribute to wikipedia but you do realize that if you start editing wars then the wiki admins will be notified and the page will either be locked or marked for deletion. My edits did not violate any copyrights and my link was the way I wanted. Your comments and suggestions do do rule here.
You're new here, Semanticity, so you might not be up on policy. I warned you not to put directory of links in the article (per WP:NOT) and not to use copyrighted material in a page (per WP:COPYVIO). You inserted information taken from the Rutgers University website, and as such (in addition to the content of the edit) they violate Wikipedia's policies. Please stop doing so. I will continue to revert, pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines, and if you continue to add copyrighted information to the article, you, not me, will cause things to be locked and blocked. —ExplorerCDT00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you ExplorerCDT. I had better read the policies in more detail. What does this mean? How does one obtain and document permission? Can this notice be linked to the proper procedures?
Do not copy text from other websites without permission.
Please refer me to the correct place for continuing this discussion since it is beyond the limited scope of the page. We should probably have people within the university reviewing the site, lawyers, public relations, etc... It would be in their best interest to monitor the Rutgers wikipedia page. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semanticity (talk • contribs) 10:24, January 16, 2007
Not violating someone else's copyright is not a Wikipedia policy per se but a legal (and, many would argue, ethical) issue.
With respect to your suggestion that Rutgers administrators "monitor" this article: They're welcome to view this article and make suggestions but there is a potential conflict of interest when one edits an article about a subject with which one is associated. In addition, I'm not sure why this article would require their attention any more than the other countless encyclopedia articles, reviews, discussions, evaluations, etc. of their institution.
Finally, welcome! Don't mind ExplorerCDT - he or she does good work here at Wikipedia but he or she can also be a bit "rough around the edges." :) Please let us know if you have any questions or need any help! --ElKevbo16:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
ElKevbo answered your questioned rather well, so there's no need for me to act as an echo except to say, as a newbie, we'll be glad to guide you along, but what I found beneficial in getting started with Wikipedia (when I did it 2.5 years ago) is to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the Manual of Style. And don't mind me, my bark is often worse than my bite, but that doesn't mean you should forget that I do bite ;-). But as ElKevbo and I have said, feel free to ask questions or for advice if you run into any problems. —ExplorerCDT 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC) —ExplorerCDT16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Straw Poll: Which name to be used?
Should we name this article Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey or Rutgers University? Naming the article just Rutgers is not an option, since it has to have the "university" quality in some way shape or form.
Rationale:
The Institution was known as Rutgers University from 1924 to 1956 when it was renamed Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, which it has used 1956 to present. (Before that it was Queen's College 1766 to 1825 and Rutgers College 1825 to 1924) but even those weren't technically correct given the institution's charter and legislative actions (it's official corporate name in 1766 was The Trustees of Queen's College in New Jersey)
Most t-shirts and promotional items just say Rutgers or Rutgers University, but Degrees, letterheads, websites, are officially instructed to say Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (see [11] and [12])
Official, self-identifying name of the institution is currently Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
The "Rutgers Law" which makes the institution the State University (NJSA 18A:65-1 et seq.) just says that it is called Rutgers, The State University, but allows for permutations The University and The State University of New Jersey[13]
Google Results: 906,000 for "Rutgers University" (minus "state") [14] and 759,000 for "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey" [15] so arguably, the spirit of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) would lean toward Rutgers University.
There's currently a big debate going on about whether to use a common or official name for an institution or entity, we should wait until it's resolve, or we could admit that it likely will never be resolved.
Redirects are cheap and easy.
Support
(This article should be renamed to Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, with Rutgers University redirecting)
(This article should remain at Rutgers University, with Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey redirecting)
The naming convention is to use the most common name. Wikipedia consistently eschews using full formal names. Official names do not trump common names. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is a redirect, not an article. Turdus migratorius is a redirect, not an article. Moby Dick; or, The Whale is a redirect, not an article. Rutgers is frequently referred to as "Rutgers" and frequently referred to as "Rutgers University." But is almost impossible to imagine anyone referring to Rutgers as "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey" except at the top of a letterhead or on a diploma or in a legal paper. To move it would be pompous and pedantic... and, as you note, clearly outside the spirit of the naming convention. Dpbsmith(talk)13:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
ExplorerCDT says on my talk page that Turdus migratorius is not a good example, because apparently the issue of common versus scientific zoological nomenclature is in dispute. So I was going to replace it with another, but unfortunately the first two that came to my mind didn't turn out the way I wanted—New World Symphony redirects to Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák), not the other way around, and Quaker, a familiar term, redirects to Religious Society of Friends, which is quite unfamiliar to people who aren't QuakersFriends. So, in the interest of intellectual dishonesty, I'm not going to mention those counterexamples. Dpbsmith(talk)15:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Explorer, have you prepared a resumé or CV in the last decade or so? What form of Rutgers' name did you use on it? (My own does say Massachusetts Institute of Technology rather than MIT.) Dpbsmith(talk)15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've wrtiten that my B.A. came from Rutgers College, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey on my curricula/resumes since 2000, including not only the long form but my degree-granting residential college affiliation because RC has more stringent admissions and graduation requirements (and historical significance being the 1766 core of the university) than other residential colleges like the affirmative-action/civil rights baby "Livingston College", founded in 1969. Though, I am jealous and feeling inferior because my ancestors who attended before Rutgers was annexed by the state not only got to use A.B., but received degrees that were vellum and inscribed in Latin. —ExplorerCDT17:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Like Dpbsmith stated, the Wikipedia naming conventions ask us to use the most common name of institutions rather then official ones. I think people are most likely to search for "Rutgers University" when looking for this page rather than "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey" and that is what is most important.--Jersey Devil18:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It's rather funny that you raised the idea of a name change last time around (see archive), and I opposed. Now I raise the issue and you oppose. Odd. Don't forget, redirects are cheap. —ExplorerCDT18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to disagree with the idea of officialdom trumping common usage (for example, my arguing over the planethood of Pluto after Pluto got plutoed). In this case, the shorter version of the name is more likely what folks are going to be looking for, and thus it makes more sense to keep the article where it is. —Rickyrab | Talk17:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, rename it just as soon as "Stanford University" is changed to "Leland Stanford Junior University", "Columbia University" is changed to "Columbia University in the City of New York", and the "University of Notre Dame" is changed to "University of Notre Dame du Lac". But of course I'm being facetious. It is standard practice to use the popular, common use name for the title of the article and then to use the official, legal name in the first sentence. Pfenixfire (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Prefer the common sense name Rutgers University, what it is known as, generally, consistent with the way Wikipedia handles names of universities.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
A very solid article. Very few content issues at all. I say look over my suggestions, maybe one more copyedit, then it looks ready for FA nomination.
Logos needs fair use rationale. Also, there might be an issue about the seal being too large to be considered fair use. (On an unrelated note, might want to remove the logo from your userpage and that violates fair use criteria #8.)
The use of Milton Friedman's image on this page violates fair use criteria.
Specify a source for how many lives streptomycin has saved.
May want to double check my punctuation, but are two periods needed after John McComb, Jr.?
"Later, University College (1945), founded to serve part-time, commuting students and Livingston College (1969), emphasizing the urban experience, were created." This sentence seems a little awkward to me.
Fix ref spacing. Refs should be placed outside of spaces. I saw numerous instances where the ref was before the period and where there was a space between the period and the ref.
There is a parenthesis issue in the "Diversity and locations" section.
May want to fix the citation needed in the Alumni section before going for FA.
Where are the Rutgers Hos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.221.52 (talk) 22:11, April 12, 2007
You're going to have to rephrase your question if you really want an answer. Otherwise I have to assume that you're simply engaging in more vandalism and looking for attention. --ElKevbo03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This might have been recentism but it did cause Don Imus to lose his job and in the course of his long career it will always be THE mark of what was his eventual termination.
Those are basketball players, not hos; I saw 'em face-to-face just before the Imus crap erupted. —Rickyrab | Talk23:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The article says "Rutgers is also home to Melville scholar H. Bruce Franklin, whose academic tenure was revoked by Stanford University for actions that were arguably the exercise of his First Amendment right to free speech." Could that be phrased in a more explanatory way? It's not clear why his dismissal is relevant to his job at Rutgers (did Rutgers hire him because of the way he was fired or dismissed?), or what the First Amendment has to do with Stanford at all.
Shouldn't the official school insignia be at the top of the infobox (instead of as an afterthought in the footer) instead of the coat of arms? I know it's good to include the CoA, but, to keep consistency with the others, should they be reversed? EaglesFanInTampa22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
You're referring to the University Seal. Yes, I think it should be shown first as it is a much more common representation of the University. The coat of arms is almost never seen except at formal ceremonies in which academic regalia is worn and the faculty march in, i.e. convocation, commencement, and naming of chairs. Also, the seal is shown twice in the article, which I think is unneccessary. It might be appropriate to mention that the seal of the university was identical to the seal of Rutgers College until about 15 years ago when it created a new seal with partial English. There were complaints about the traditional seal being replaced, but since Rutgers College does not exist anymore, perhaps it was a good thing, or perhaps worse. Anyway... Njsustain (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The coat of arms is not present in the University's visual identity manual (http://identity.rutgers.edu/identity_manual.pdf) and therefore should not be used in the infobox. The identity manual indicates that the University seal and the logotype are the primary element of the Rutgers visual identity system. Meganfoxx (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
So why did RU turn down Ivy membership back in the 1950s?
Just curious. —Rickyrab | Talk 23:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe it was because they wanted to remain more accessible to NJ residents (fee wise), but I may be wrong. Rutgers is one of only two colleges to turn down an Ivy League Invitation. Amishjedi23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Amishjedi
What makes you think Rutgers was ever offered Ivy membership? The Ivy League is not based on a coincidence in founding dates, it is based on the fact that those schools had played each other for decades and declined to offer football scholarships. The Ivy League is an athletic league -- it does not institute tuition requirements for regular students. This idea that two schools were ever offered Ivy membership sounds like a myth.
--Editing17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Rutgers did play many games with Princeton. The age coincidence is because the most prominent universities are old universities, and back then there weren't many with that historic legacy to form an athletic league so I imagine they were grabbing up as many as they can. I'm sure you can get a reference somewhere on the Rutgers website for them being offered a league membership. I'm not ruling out the possibility it is a myth, but given that I've heard the story from many reliable officials at Rutgers, I'd take it as fact until I find proof otherwise. (this is not believing until proven wrong, it is a matter of being given proof (in the form of authorative statements) and so believing until finding overriding proof) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 23:14, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Conservapedia has lately claimed that the account of Rutgers and the Ivy League was a "hoax". This is what happens when Conservapedia editors don't do their research diligently - they just dismiss stuff out-of-hand in an effort to slander Wikipedia and its editors, and this should only serve to embarrass Conservapedia. Next time, do research before claiming it's a hoax, or at least back up your claims with solid information! 204.52.215.10704:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in this story:
::You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."[37]
For the record, I don't quite consider it a dumb mistake - the Ivies are private schools, and Rutgers is a state school, and it might have stuck out as somewhat of a misfit. As for the idea that it was a false statement, that would be an accusation that the student newspaper Daily Targum, under whatever names it used over the years, lied multiple times over several years, for starters...204.52.215.10704:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reliable source (such as minutes or reports of the Ivy Group of Presidents or the Rutgers administration) that says Rutgers asked to be let into the league and was turned down? Was Rutgers offering football scholarships in 1954? If so, it had no reason to ask to join the league. Was it really playing the other ivies regularly in football?
The myth that some microfilm in Alexander Library mentions Rutgers once being invited to join the Ivy League has been successfully debunked at [Ivy League]. The Ivy League does not appear to have ever offered membership to any school other than those that make up its eight original members.Dartmothian (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any hard facts on this, but there is evidence that Rutgers would have initially been involved the discussion of who would be in the league. The fact that it was one of the 9 colonial colleges (7 of whom eventually became part of the Ivy league), and an athletic opponent of most of those since the late 1800s, makes it plausible. Plus, the following supports the idea that Rutgers was considered one of the crowd:
"However, representatives from four schools, Rutgers, Princeton, Yale and Columbia met at the Fifth Avenue Hotel in Manhattan on 19 October 1873 to establish a set of rules governing their intercollegiate athletic competition, and particularly to codify the new game of college football (which at the time, largely resembled what is currently called rugby[29]). Though invited, Harvard chose not to attend. While no formal organization or conference was established, the results of this meeting governed athletic events between these schools well into the twentieth century.[30][31]" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League )
Rutgers' status as a public univ shouldn't be relevant to the question: Rutgers only became a public institution after two acts of NJ legislation in 1945 and 1956, but the talk of "ivy" schools began in the 1930s and 1940s, and Rutgers seems to have been included in this. I don't think there was any top-down decision of who to include, nor was there some mythical "invitation" extended to certain colleges rather than others... It was an organized effort by many institutional leaders, and somewhere along the way Rutgers fell by the wayside... (Given the history of the editorial run in 7 of the schools' daily newspapers on December 3, 1936, Brown was on the outside looking in; and given Cornell's young-buck status and geographical location, Rutgers would have been a better fit... But history went differently.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.16 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I cannot seem to find an article at the moment but I do recall reading in the Daily Targum some years ago that Rutgers gets offered Ivy League status every X amount of years but turns it down so they can continue to receive state funding. However I think it said something regarding an informal invite. That has nothing to do with being accessible to NJ residents. If you talk to people, the sense is that no one from NJ initially wants to go to Rutgers, but people on the west coast for example think Rutgers is like 'wow'. Most of Rutgers students are from NJ though and generally do enjoy the university experience. Rutgers apparently is considered a Public Ivy League. I don't have the proof in front of me that Rutgers was offered Ivy League but I quote this from a poster (from http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080523192940AAAJsgp) "Several articles 1948-1956 in the The Daily Targum (Rutgers University's campus newspaper), located in The Targum, The Rutgers Targum and The Daily Targum (then printed weekly) Microfilm records (1) v.87-v.94:no.35 OCT 17,1945-APR 10,1953, and (2) v.94:no.36-v.104:no.58 APR 17,1953-DEC 5,1972 (2 rolls) and Walton R. Johnson Papers (1949-2001), Special Collections and University Archives, Archibald S. Alexander Library, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey." Heresmyworld 23:51, 25 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.117.47 (talk)
Whoever said that the Ivy League had never offered admission to any other schools is false. I can't confirm if Rutgers was ever offered admission, but Annapolis was once a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.244.151 (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
don't know if this piece of information helps to partially answer this question, but there is record from Harvard Crimson that back in October 1953, Rutgers University (with support of the University president, students, and alumni) was planning to petition the Ivy League colleges in order to "become a member" of the Ivy league:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1953/10/28/rutgers-officials-may-apply-for-ivy/
Accordingly, "George Witte", a senior council member who proposed the motion, "told the council that Rutgers had everything to gain and nothing to lose by such a petition."
RU Screw
In 1982, a move by the administration to decentralize the faculty, while heavily protested, was successful.[5] However... red tape and confusion, known among students as the "RU Screw."[18]
1) Screw not new in '82. The phrase "Rutgers Screw" was in WIDE common use when I arrived in 1972. My wife agrees. Fashion may have shifted to "RU Screw", whatEVER, not new news.
2) The 1982 action combined faculty, not "decentralize(d)" them. Independent departments at Livingston, Rutgers (main), and Douglass were merged into single departments. Read the protest sign at
http://ruweb.rutgers.edu/timeline/1980a.htm and
http://ruweb.rutgers.edu/timeline/images/1980a1.jpg
"decentralization not centralization"
3) I don't recall the protests as "heavy", but objective references may not exist.
4) NPOV: be careful about taking protests too seriously. Everything gets protested by somebody. Rutgers has a vast Silent Majority. I believe (without citation) that the majority of students and faculty saw potential benefit in the change (or didn't care). One Chair was VERY excited to have access to better facilities. Obviously there was disruption and disturbance (that Chair got moved to a damp basement office and lost his Chairmanship and a lot of autonomy). But I feel the Balkanized campus-level departments were generally strengthened by merging.
5) It is too soon to say what the current reorganization really means. It turns out the 1982 action merged the Faculty but not the Colleges. College Deans set requirements and granted degrees but the faculty worked for FAS (now SAS). You'd have to work at Rutgers to understand. The current reorganization appears to finish what the 1982 upheaval started: the historical Colleges will fade, become Residential Colleges. For most students, it will be a non-event. It may simplify things for a few, not that they'd notice.
6) A much greater upheaval happened 2 years back. "All Funds Budgeting". RU presents a neat budget summary to State and Board. But the fine details were highly informal, historical, whimsical, political. Much as Ford Motor rationalized the books after WWII, Rutgers changed school and departmental accounting to be tied to tuition monies. This has been a boon to some and a disaster to others. Some subjects are all lecture, others are a lot of hands-on and expensive supplies. Like all drama at RU, it will take years to see how this plays out.
7) Did I miss mention of the old Governor's whim to merge ALL the state schools? I know that idea ran hot then cold. When hot it was a real hot-potato issue. Between scandal at the Gov and scandal at That Other School, it's probably been dropped.
8) You can try to objectively understand RU, and go mad; or just cover the solid basics without delving in the murk. The 1982 reorganization is of interest only because of the the current reorg; after that is done neither reorg is of lasting interest except to old man McCormick, and he's not with us now. While I agree that Wikipedia may handle current events, I'd rank RU reorg as fairly uninteresting to the general public, and very poorly understood or documented.
PRR 68.239.136.12906:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this why Rutgers dumped men's crew as a varsity sport? Because they were annoyed over the Rutgers Screw?
hmmm. —Rickyrab | Talk 23:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The U. admins cut this and other sports in a tantrum to protest funding cuts from the state, even though those sports are, financially, a drop in the bucket compared tot he huge sucking sound of the football program. High schools or colleges, there's always plenty of money for varsity football, no matter how bad the budget is and what cuts are being made to other sports (or academic programs... Rutgers has those too). Njsustain (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Location
The location should simply refer to the university system HQ. And these departments are out of New Brunswick:
"About the President." - "Office of the President Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 83 Somerset Street • New Brunswick • NJ • 08901"
"Governing Boards of the University." "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Office of the Secretary of the University 7 College Avenue Winants Hall, Room 112 New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1260 "
"Mailing Addresses & Locations." (University Relations) "Office of the Vice President Department of University Relations Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 83 Somerset Street New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1281"
The school color is scarlet, and only scarlet. Other colors used for highlights, backgrounds, or embellishments come and go, but none are school colors, regardless of what designers are using as their "standards" right now. A reference doesn't give you the right to mislead people about the subject. Any further changes to the school color in the article will be reverted out of hand as vandalism. 74.102.164.44 (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, there is a difference between the current style guide and the school color, just as there is a difference between not censoring wikipedia and going around calling other users "giant dicks." 74.102.164.44 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Added reference from Rutgers.edu which states:
"Scarlet is the official color of Rutgers University. In 1869, the Daily Targum, the student newspaper, first proposed that warm, exciting hue represent the school.
"At the time, the use of school colors was little known in the U.S., making Rutgers a pioneer in establishing a college color, according to William H.S. Demarest, class of 1883 and Rutgers’ president (1906–1924).
"Orange, a color associated with Holland, had been an early choice, but orange ribbon proved hard to come by. So “scarlet was then proposed, chiefly no doubt because it is a striking color and because a good scarlet ribbon could be had.” "
In the last couple of days someone added detailed information about the New Brunswick-area campus bus system to this article (and in the process seems to have broken the heading hierarchy of some other sections). While I am not sure that a listing of Rutgers campus bus routes belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, I am sure it does not belong in this article, which is an overview of the entire statewide university. I am removing this information and for now, at least, am moving it to the Rutgers – New Brunswick article. Later correction: I now see it is already in that article in somewhat different format and with somewhat different information. I have not compared the two to see which is better and/or more comprehensive. If someone feels the information that was here is better, you can substitute it from the edit history of this article into that section of the other article, or merge them or blend them or whatever. Just please do it in that article, not this one. Neutron (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Being the second largest bus system in NJ, and a major part of campus life for students, it is worth a mention, but going into details about it does not add to the article. I edited this for appropriate focus in the article. 74.102.164.44 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Ray Rice
There is a photo of Ray Rice in the article. Is Ray Rice the most famous alumnus from Rutgers University? I have never heard of him, but I'm not interested in football, so that might be the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carstensen (talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe Waksmann (There's a photo of him, too) is probably the most famous alumnus. But Rice is probably the most famous recent one. He has been featured in many New York Times sports articles. In addition, he was the biggest name on campus, while he was still there. Even those of us who never watched a Rutgers football game could recognize him on sight.169.232.131.133 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Many new photos added
I visited Rutgers recently and took perhaps 50 photos; many need better descriptions; please feel free to use them in this article if desired; they can be found within here] (as time goes by you may have to scroll down a bit to find the Rutgers photos as new ones become added -- or else look at the newer photos on the bottom of Category:Rutgers University.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. Photos of campus buildings or Rutgers students are "unnecessary"? The photos are relevant and useful and encyclopedic. The comment "do not help support the University's image" is more nonsense -- Wikipedia is not a public relations brochure for any college, so claiming to remove photos on that basis is absurd, or going in the other direction, and claiming that photos of buildings or students are "blatant" academic boosterism -- more nonsense. How does a photo of a building or students at an admissions event constitute "boosterism"? Simply nonsense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Tell you what. If there is some other personal issue bothering you about these photos, something that you do not wish to publicly explain, then email me at thomaswrightsulcer (at) yahoo (dot) com and be upfront with me about what troubles you, and I will try to work with you, and I will keep our conversation confidential. Or, if you wish, choose one photo that bothers you the most, and I'll try to delete it, regardless of any reason, if that might satisfy you (but that's it -- if more photos are continually removed, then I will take back my offer). If you agree, choose one photo.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I have seen this disagreement unfold on my watchlist today, and I agree with User:ElKevbo--this discussion on Rutgers transitioning to "cage-free eggs" should not be included in the article. This entire section is rather "miscellaneous" and trivial--the kind of stuff that WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE tells us to avoid--and needs cleanup. Just because it happened, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia per the latter policy. Further, IMHO, this content pushes an agenda which runs afoul (no pun intended) of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. While it was reported in patch.com, that news service is comparable to a blog and lacks credibility, and I think we should apply both WP:NEWSBLOG (patch doesn't qualify as a blog connected reliable news organisation) and WP:BLOGS which advises that such news sources often do not qualify as reliable sources adding Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.--the only coverage of the issue was in patch and the Rutgers student newspaper which renders this information far below the standards for notability, per WP:N (i.e. the lack of "significant coverage" in reliable sources unconnected to the subject.). I agree with User:ElKevbo, the content should not be included, it is not encyclopaedic, and I'm removing it per the above and in the spirit of WP:BOLD.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm mostly agreeing with ElKevbo and ColonelHenry except I'm thinking perhaps a mention of this could be added somewhere, albeit briefly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I would not object to a brief mention (i.e. one sentence) if it were part of a larger context, like a section on activism, and not a self-aggrandizing pat on the back to some student organization (which isn't per se notable)...since Rutgers was well known for 1960s sit-in protests and Vietnam issues, and recently was the birthplace of Tent State University. But I think there is a high bar for relevance, even with the latitude offered by WP:N, and I am very doubtful this "event" merits even a brief mention--any more than James O'Keefe's petition to remove "Lucky Charms" breakfast cereal from the dining hall on the grounds it was offensive to Irish-Americans. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd be willing to compromise with a (very) brief mention if there is a legitimate rationale for including this material (that does not include merely publicizing or celebrating it). I agree that this incident is a good example of meaningful, effective student activism. Such an example may not be necessary or warranted in this article but if one is needed then this is a good, recent one (although there may be others that are better). ElKevbo (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
LEDE First Sentence issue: Rutgers University vs. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
In the last week, two anonymous IP editors have insisted on reversing the order of the university's bold name in the lede sentence. The lede, as I recently revised it states:
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, /ˈrʌtɡərz/, known informally as Rutgers University, is an American public research university and the largest institution for higher education in New Jersey in the United States.
These anonymous IP editors have sought to revise it to Rutgers University, officially Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, is an...
I have revised it as such for the following reasons:
By state law, Rutgers is "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey"
Rutgers' University Relations department publishes a style guide, stating that in first reference the official statutory name Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey is to be used, subsequent references may use the informal. [16]. Rutgers consistently uses the format of its style guide, its letterhead, website, and public relations documents all use the formal name prominently.
The name "Rutgers University" has not been official since 1945 and while it was decided above to rename the article Rutgers University per WP:UCN, the common name is not the official name.
The universities wikiproject advises the use of WP:UCN in naming an article, but implies formal name and then other names in the lede content. Standard use throughout the wikiproject's articles has been formal name first, other informal names to follow.
Comparative use (official names vs. informal names):
Pennsylvania State University ("The Pennsylvania State University" is the official name. While the article name is just "Pennsylvania State University" putatively under WP:UCN and is lacking the definite article The per MOS rules on starting article names with "The", this form is not the official name, neither is another common name, Penn State which are subsequent references
The first sentence: The Pennsylvania State University (commonly referred to as Penn State or PSU) is a public, state-related research university with campuses and facilities in Pennsylvania
The first sentence: Leland Stanford Junior University, commonly referred to as Stanford University or Stanford, is an American private research university located in Stanford, California.
The first sentence: The University of Oxford (informally referred to as Oxford University or simply Oxford) is a collegiate research university located in Oxford, England, United Kingdom.
Comparatively, geographic names tend to be by its original name: Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. The general rule is that "the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used"--followed by alternative names. Per WP:MPN, "For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one."
Biographical articles use the full name of the individual before common name, per WP:LEDE and WP:FULLNAME
articles regarding companies and organizations use the official name first then the informal names (see examples: 3M, Microsoft, AMD, GE, Chrysler).
Just a few considerations. Please stop changing the order as it is less accurate, and not in keeping with establish convention for university articles.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
While my preference is Rutgers University as the first two words in the article (basic reason: it seems to be an established Wikipedia guideline that the first words reflect the article title exactly), however, in consideration of your lengthy work on this article, out of deference I'll support your decision regarding this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: WP:LEDE, WP:UCN and any other guidelines regarding this topic do not compel or specifically establish anything close to your assertion "the first words reflect the article title exactly" as we see with the examples enumerated above and many others, especially when we consider usage across the universities wikiproject, Rutgers' own style guide (which we defer to in naming Rutgers-Newark and Rutgers-Camden and other places), we defer then the official name. WP:LEDE advises that "the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form" and that the formal name be used as early as possible. Whether a common name titles the article, it is not apposite to use a name that hasn't been an official name since 1945 as the first statement of the article. UCN only refers to article titles, not to content. And while I appreciate your deference, I'd rather have your statement comment on my points regarding the interpretation and application of guidelines vis-à-vis the comparative usage as discussed above. Deference is nice, but it doesn't establish a consensus or get to the essence of policy and action. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
@ColonelHenry: Generally I do not see this as an important issue. I have edited Wikipedia for several years now; my general sense, not based on any specific rulings, is that most articles begin with the exact words, that we are not bound to go by what the University feels should be its title but generally what users, looking for information about Rutgers University, will look for. That is, if you asked me for my view, that is what I would tell you, that is, if you valued my opinion. Still, if you feel strongly about this, I'll side with you, because of your previous contributions to this article, which in my view merits deference.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I asked for WP:LEDE to address this specific example at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section and to make the result of that discussion MOS policy. Since biographies, place names, WP:FULLNAME, WP:MPN, and companies tend to mention first the formal name then informal names in their first sentences (despite what WP:UCN determines to be their article titles), there should be a consistent edict regarding the format/content order of first sentences of articles on universities and educational institutions. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes although I am thinking it is unlikely that the community will achieve consensus on this issue; it would be hard to enforce; and I think it is mostly a matter of taste and how strongly feel about it. I doubt it would be possible, or even advisable, on a slightly similar issue, to impose only one referencing style on all articles in Wikipedia, since too many different writers, over time, have brought different ideas, and the referencing styles themselves continue to evolve; what is important, rather, is that referencing happens. Same with this subject: what is important is that the article talks about what the article talks about. I can run with your lede sentence as it is. In my view, consistency ranks way down on the list of priorities for fixing Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we can agree to disagree on consistency as a priority. I am a little surprised though that the university articles generally conform to mentioning the official name first. It would be nice if there is a definitive policy to point to avoid rehashing the issue in the future.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why it matters much which comes first, as long as both are included in the lede. Normally when we put alternate names in the lede, we bold both of them, so people will spot it regardless. Personally, I much prefer wording like "Stanford University, officially named Leland Stanford Jr. University." but I can't imagine bothering to change an article one way or the other. It is exactly this type of issue where the community cannot attain consensus, for the excellent reason that it does not matter. For things that do not matter, one person's preference is as good as another's and there is no reason to expect they will agree. One thing community editing cannot be expected to achieve is consistency. The traditional WP arguing over things like this is a distraction from editing. And this article does need some serious editing, including removal of puffery, such as "The university's three campuses offer instruction by distinguished faculty in 175 academic fields. or "Rutgers University Cell and DNA Repository (RUCDR) ...activities will enable gene discovery leading to diagnoses, treatments and, eventually, cures for these diseases. RUCDR assists researchers throughout the world by providing the highest quality biomaterials, technical consultation, and logistical support." . DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
@DGG:...as they say: when the stakes are low, the fights get lower. The puffery in the article I've been working on--I'm rewriting the entire article offsite, and formatting it in my sandbox section by section, and that's already a passage I've rewritten, just waiting to prep it. I should be fixing that for good in short order.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Glad to know it--keeps me from going inefficiently bit by bit to do what you're doing systematically. Not that the Rutgers article is particular bad--a large proportion of our university articles have similar problems. 03:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the Rutgers article is that it seems to have started with little, then a few editors came in with material that was 60%-accurate and good and supportable, and 40% "hey, I went to school here, I know this, it's true because I've been told." Then over the years, the accurate information became outdated, and most of the submissions were other people put a line or two about stuff they knew, but only a few added semi-accurate or accurate material with citations. What I'm aiming to do, is cite everything--practically every sentence--cut down the fluff, and make the article efficient. Just the facts because ultimately, I'd like to bring it up to FA standard.--ColonelHenry (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
New material re Rutgers Princeton merger 1792
removed for redevelopment:
Rejection of Ivy League Status
In 1792, the President of the College of New Jersey, John Witherspoon, proposed a union of that college with Queen's College of New Brunswick, NJ. A committee of Princeton Trustees was formed to meet with the Trustees of Queen's College. At the Princeton Trustees Meeting of December 18th, 1793, it was reported that the Trustees of Queen's College rejected the offer (pp. 319-320)
"Dr. Witherspoon reported that he had received a letter from Archibald Mercer Esqr. informing him that the Trustees of Queen's College had rejected the poropositions of the joint committees of that college & the college of New Jersey on the subject of a uion of the two institutions." The College of New Jersey was the future Princeton University and Queen's College became Rutgers University. It might be added that one of Witherspoon's graduates, Ira Condict, served as vice-President of Rutgers and is credited with both saving with rejuvenating the college during later troubles in the 19th century[1].
@Tomwsulcer:, I paired down the section by roughly half...despite thinking about it this week, I was finally spurred on tonight by Randal Pinkett's PR reps trying to insert him into the article. I think I narrowed it down to recognizably notable people and cut out a lot of lesser notable people. Made it feel less like a "me, too" list.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Football players after a practice.Guides welcome newly admitted students.
The school song of Rutgers University is On the Banks of the Old Raritan, written by Howard Fullerton (Class of 1874) in 1873.[2] It is often sung at University occasions, including concerts of the Rutgers University Glee Club, at Convocation and Commencement exercises, and especially at the conclusion of athletic events. The university's fight song is The Bells Must Ring, which features the school's spirit chant: "R-U Rah Rah, R-U Rah Rah, Hoo-Rah! Hoo-Rah Rutgers Rah! Upstream Red Team, Red Team Upstream, Rah! Rah! Rutgers Rah!." Notable among a number of songs commonly played and sung at various events such as commencement, convocation, and athletic games are: The Bells Must Ring, the Rutgers University fight song.
Scarlet was made the official school color of Rutgers University in 1900. Initially, students sought to make orange the school color, citing Rutgers' Dutch heritage and in reference to the Prince of Orange. The Daily Targum first proposed that scarlet be adopted in May 1869, claiming that it was a striking color and because scarlet ribbon was easily obtained. During the first intercollegiate football game with Princeton on November 6, 1869, the players from Rutgers wore scarlet-colored turbans and handkerchiefs to distinguish them as a team from the Princeton players.[3] Although Rutgers incorporates the colors black and white on their signs, symbols, and athletic uniforms as accent colors, scarlet is the one and only color of the university. The current mascot is the Scarlet Knight. In its early days, Rutgers athletes were known as "Queensmen" in reference to the institution's first name, Queen's College. However, in 1925, the mascot was changed to Chanticleer, a fighting rooster from the medievalfableReynard the Fox (Le Roman de Renart) which was used by Geoffrey Chaucer's in the Canterbury Tales. However, this mascot was often the subject of ridicule because of its association with "being chicken." In 1955, the mascot was changed to the Scarlet Knight after a campus-wide election.[3] The names (and mascots) of the athletic teams at Rutgers–Newark and Rutgers–Camden are the "Scarlet Raiders" and the "Scarlet Raptors", respectively.
Rutgers' motto, Sol iustitiae et occidentem illustra (translated as "Sun of righteousness, shine upon the West also") is derived from the motto of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, which is Sol Iustitiae Illustra Nos (translated as "Sun of Justice, shine upon us"). It is a reference to the biblical texts of Malachi 4:2 and Matthew 13:43.[4] This motto appears in the University's seal (pictured above), which is also derived from that of the University of Utrecht, and depicts a multi-pointed sun.[5]
At Commencement exercises in the Spring, tradition leads undergraduates to break clay pipes over the Class of 1877 Cannon monument in front of Old Queens, symbolizing the breaking of ties with the college, and leaving behind the good times of one's undergraduate years. This symbolic gesture dates back to when pipe-smoking was fashionable among undergraduates, and many college memories were of evenings of pipe smoking and revelry with friends. Unfortunately, in recent years under President McCormick, the university administration has decided to stop funding this tradition, despite strong outcry from students and alumni.[6] During commencement exercises, graduating seniors walk in academic procession under the Class of 1902 Memorial Gateway (erected in 1904) on Hamilton Street leading to the Voorhees Mall where the ceremonies are held for Rutgers College. Traditionally, students are warned to avoid walking beneath the gate before commencement over a superstition that one who does will not graduate. Due to the new commencement at High Point Solutions Stadium, students are no longer given the opportunity to walk through the gates during commencement.
Coat of arms
The shield of the Rutgers coat of arms appears on the university gonfalon, and is at the head of all processions. The first quarter bears the arms of Nassau, the House of Orange, and recognizes the Dutch founders. The arms in the upper sinister quarter are those of George III combined with Queen Charlotte's. It was George III who granted the Charter of 1766 to Queen's College, named in honor of Charlotte of Mecklenburg, King George's consort. The arms shown on the sinister half are Queen Charlotte's. The third quarter from the Seal of the State of New Jersey. The fourth quarter is the coat of arms of Colonel Henry Rutgers.
The University Coat of Arms (or shield) is used during all Academic processions
Seal
The University Seal based on that of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands whose motto around a sun is "Sol iustitiae illustra nos": "Sun of righteousness, shine upon us". Rutgers modified the Utrecht seal to read "Sol iustitiae et occidentem illustra"; embracing the Western world, meaning "Sun of righteousness, shine upon the West also." The boards of governors and trustees approved a revised seal for the University 1997 that includes the words "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey" and adds the 1766 founding date.
Center for Middle Eastern Studies
The center was established in the 1970s as the Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures Program. During the mid-1980s, the program was changed into the Middle Eastern Studies Program and a Major and Minor was officially defined and offered to the University's undergraduate students. The Center's present form was established in 2002 when it became known as the Center for Middle Eastern Studies. Students at Rutgers currently have a choice of over 70 different courses offered regularly through the Center.[7]
Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences
Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences is not a fourth campus, it is an organization devoted to health sciences under the Rutgers University administration. The organization is spreadout all over the three campuses in New Brunswick/Piscataway, Newark and Camden. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Apparently a quick google search indicates that the University and regional media didn't get your memo. Reverted some of your changes, and added three (out of several) sources establishing that the university and media recognize it as "fourth campus". Do you actually know anything about Rutgers, or bother to do google searches, or just intend to impose your views from New Mexico willy-nilly? --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Add to that grouping that calls it a "fourth campus" the State of New Jersey and UMDNJ: [17].
Logically it isn't a regional campus as you mentioned! UMDNJ is already merged to Rutgers, and it did not state that it is a fourth campus, the pdf only shown as the UMDNJ campus!
Apparently you didn't read p. 187, which states The legacy UMDNJ Schools as well as biomedical schools/units from Rutgers University were designated a fourth "campus" of Rutgers University, the Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences (RBHS) campus.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is another proof https://www.rutgers.edu/about-rutgers/facts-figures The Biomedical and Health Sciences is not part of major campuses it only mentione 3, yes 3, and it stated; 3 major campuses (Rutgers University–New Brunswick, Rutgers University–Newark, Rutgers University–Camden), with additional locations, including Rutgers Health Sciences at New Brunswick/Piscataway, Newark, Scotch Plains, Somerset, and Stratford. So now, who really actually know Rutgers University, shame if you are an alumni of Rutgers! Juicy fruit146 (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
really? I pointed to four sources (one from a Rutgers administrative body, the State of New Jersey, and media) out of many on a quick google search that state it's considered a "fourth campus", yet you ignore it and try to remove the relevant quotes added to the reliable sources cited. Apparently you fail to comprehend that the bullet point singling out Rutgers Health Sciences division is a clause that is comparative to the three campuses...the division that reliable sources (indicated above) call a "fourth campus"-- And lest you wish to persist being obtuse, my edits appropriately cover the many facilities/locations, division, fourth-campus etc. issues. You're disingenuously splitting hairs by claiming it's "separated" despite it being listed on a page called "Our Campuses"[18]--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
And, FYI, singular nominative case in Latin is "alumnus", "alumni" is plural. I'm not many people, I'm just one...you're forgiven for being uneducated.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Nah, I'll just assume that was an error you've made 1,000 times before simply out of not knowing any better. "Narrow-minded"...laughable, given that I'm quite a bit more erudite on a bad day than you will ever be. Is that too big a word for New Mexico?--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a single mistake, and you call a person uneducated!? I bet you are really that perfect in grammar ha? I bet Snooki, might hire you as her grammar corrector! Good luck!
Yawn. I'd bet you make the same "alumni" mistake the next time you utter the word. I hold no hope for you. Anyways, I proved my point--rather than admit you were wrong, you'd rather ignore four reliable sources, ignore the holes in your argument, and invoke Snooki (as if I care). I'm done with you. Go harass the numbskulled Penn State folks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, you can yawn anytime you want but your point is still not valid! It is still an organization and not a regional campus you are insisting! Juicy fruit146 (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
So now you called Penn State people numbskulled? What a jerk you are! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juicy fruit146 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, four reliable sources (Rutgers itself, UMDNJ and the State of NJ's Higher Education commission, and two regional media sources) provided say the RBHS division, spread out as it is, is considered a "fourth campus"--I assert that, accordingly, (a) your complaint is invalid and baseless, and should you chose to pursue it, reliable sources (provided) will beat out your petulance every time, and (b) you might as well join those Penn State idiots in that category since your persistence only cements my impression of you as an idiot to whom nothing can be explained and who either doesn't want to read or doesn't know how to read a reliable source. I'm tired of you. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The fact that you said -provided say the RBHS division, spread out as it is, is considered a "fourth campus,” still means it is not a physical regional campus, just because in your citation says it is considered a fourth campus, it does not mean it is a fourth campus! Lol! Get your facts straight; even middle school students can understand it better than you do! Lol! It is only considered an academic campus, provided it has its own chancellor but not a regional campus with physical location, since their campuses are spread out all over NJ. Still your argument is not valid.
In one of your sources, it mentioned,” fourth (theoretical) RBHS campus,” you still don’t get it,? even your sources defy you lol! It is only a fourth campus for academic purposes, but not a regional campus you are insisting!
Juicy fruit146 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you did, I did some editing in the article and in the campus section you stated in the Campuses section, four regional campuses. And now you are denying? You can’t even put an “s” to the word Science, in the Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences name, what a joke! Shame!Juicy fruit146 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
People, people, people, enough. You are both better than this. Please remember to assume good faith. I looked over your discussion here and I am kind of thinking that you're both right -- that RBHS is an umbrella organization and there is a fourth campus, like if we got in a dirigible, buzzed around the state, marking each campus by splattering a giant R in red paint on the rooftops of a prominent building in each, we'd count four. Not that I have any plans to go dirigible-splattering red Rs, mind you; but it is a hypothetical possibility.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Tom, if you look at the section, I addressed all those concerns in the article in the RBHS section, and did so adequately covering all bases. But this adamantly annoying New Mexico-based gadfly seems to prefer that we delete it all together. I'm done with this annoying user, and if he keeps causing trouble (like he does at other university articles where he's similarly reverted), I'll have him blocked. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Rutgers University/Archive 1! We are looking for editors to join the Rutgers University Libraries collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Rutgers University Libraries in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rutgers University. 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:
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.
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rutgers University. 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:
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.
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rutgers University. 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:
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.
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rutgers University. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
I have just modified one external link on Rutgers University. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
I have just modified 4 external links on Rutgers University. 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:
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.
Presumably classes were held in Dutch at the establishment of the institution. Is there any information available as to when the switch to English was made?Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Terrible text
The section on Rutgers-New Brunswick seems to have been written by a junior high school student. It's not even good enough for the Targum. Sad. -A disappointed alumnus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.49.191 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I've attempted a little bit of clean-up. Hope that helps. RenaissongsMan 01:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaissongsman (talk • contribs)
I did some additions to make it more general but I wanted input on the last two paragraphs. Should they be removed they are very specific. Also should study abroad be merged into student life or Academics? I don't think it should be its own category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aep000 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Which figures are displayed as famous alumni
While there is a debate whether warren is more famous than the chef Mario Batali I make argument that Batali is more famous especially with the latest news and the fact he's considered one of the most famous chefs in the world. Warren while famous is more know only by those in politics. If googling both names Batali appears more prominently in search results as in top 10 of famous chefs while warren is not as famous in terms of us senators. This could change in future but presently Batali is more famous despite being controversial. Also warren attended the law school for one or two years or so and was not really very closely associated with school of rutgers as batali was. So as it currently stands I make argument since Batali is still slightly more famous he remains in notable figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja1011 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
250th anniversary and alumni information in "History" section
Raja1011 is insisting that the "History" section, specifically the concluding "Today" section, include this paragraph:
Rutgers celebrated its 250th anniversary in 2016. On May 15 President Barack Obama became first sitting president to speak at the university's commencement.[32] The university held a variety of celebrations, academic programs, and commemorative events which culminated on the 250th anniversary date, November 10, 2016. Rutgers invited multiple notable alumni from around the world to the celebration. Today Rutgers enjoys global influence with alumni rooted around the globe. Rutgers also has close ties to figures who grew up or continue to live in New Jersey with notable figures such as Chris Christie, justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, and Alice Waters each having a parent who attended the institution.
First, all of this information is unsourced; the superscript 32 is just that - a superscript - and not an actual link to a reference. Even if one or more references were added this still doesn't seem like information that rises to the level of inclusion in an already-long article; the mention of a sitting president delivering the commencement address is the one bit of information that may still be worth including.
Second, the last two sentences about the university "global influence with alumni rooted around the globe" are completely irrelevant in a discussion of the university's history. Moreover the sentence isn't even discussing alumni but people who "[had] a parent who attended the institution!" It's really bad writing ("alumni rooted around the globe" - really?) and POV nonsense. ElKevbo (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
In 2020, the English department announced it would emphasize "critical grammar", which " challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard 'academic' English backgrounds at a disadvantage".[8] The move was criticized as being racist and patronizing, assuming minorities cannot comprehend traditional English.[9]
This is recent news and does not belong in this article especially as the cited sources do not establish this as having significant and lasting importance. Nowhere else in the history section do we discuss the curriculum of a specific department. And the source that is cited to establish that this is controversial is a poor, partisan source that does little to establish that there is genuine, widespread controversy that is so noteworthy that it belongs in an encyclopedia article that has to summarize the entire history, organization, governance, and accomplishments - good and bad - of this complex institution that is over 250 years old. ElKevbo (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
This was part of the university's response to the George Floyd protests, and the only part that attracted widespread attention. Here is Carol M. Swain calling Rutgers response "demeaning". Also, ElKevbo, in your edit summary you called The Jewish Voice a "shrill partisan source". Do you have issues with sources published by particular faiths? The New York Post and FOX News also went with this, would you feel--how shall I say this--less uncomfortable with one of those? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I have issues with sources that are blatantly partisan but pretend to be neutral and objective. Those same sources tend to be ones that create their own controversies instead of reporting on ones that exist independently of their biased fear mongering. So do you have any sources that are reliable and actually present sufficient evidence that this controversy is so noteworthy that it merits inclusion in this article?
None of these sources are listed as "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP. Moreover, WP:NPOV#Bias in sources states: "biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view". Magnolia677 (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Although some of those are reliable, they're all low quality sources. More importantly, even if we set aside the fact that this is only controversial because these partisan authors are creating their own controversy, there is no evidence that this is of any lasting importance and sufficient impact to warrant inclusion in this article. It's a trivial blip in the right wing media, nothing more. If it turns out to be more substantive and results in something more than opinion pieces pushed by biased authors, we can certainly revisit it. ElKevbo (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm less concerned about partisan bias here and more about the quality of the sources, it seems like the original press release is being blatantly misinterpreted in most of these sources. But I also agree with ElKevbo that this wouldn't merit inclusion even if the sources were better, at least not as things stand right now (obviously this could change in the future if there were more significant developments further down the line). --Drevolt (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Rutgers University has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
increase article protection from semi-protection to extended confirmed protection due to persistent efforts to add opinionated sections that semi-protection has failed to prevent Ronak19 (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
This is in reference to an edit I made, which was later reverted by ElKevbo. The rationale provided for the revert, i.e. WP:NOTNEWS, is not applicable here as the petition and the subsequent events have been reported by various news sources in India, including The Times of India and TV9 Digital. Indian media reporting about an American university is clearly not reflective of routine coverage. In light of the coverage attracted by this petition, it is evident that it is notable enough to be mentioned in this article. I'll also suggest those with a contrary viewpoint to discuss it out here before reverting the edit. SignificantPBD (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to edit war with other editors to insert new material into an article especially when legitimate objections have been raised and not yet resolved. You do not own this article and do not get to dictate its content.
Exactly what about this Twitter exchange and Internet petition have resulted in long-lasting change at this university? Why must readers know about this in the context of an institution that is over 250 years old? We must summarize the entire history, organization, funding, accomplishments, and challenges of this institution in this article so we must be extremely selective about what we include. We cannot include every news item or recent event so why does this particular recent event merit inclusion? ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
You don't have a limit on the number of words in Wikipedia as far as I know. Even if there was a limit, a small section with the most recent controversy that came out of Rutgers wouldn't hurt. This is not a football match lost by Rutgers to ignore, its a statement put out by the university itself with its Chancellor as one of the signatories. What exactly qualifies to go into Rutgers wiki page ? I dont think the cancellation of Lisa Daftari's speech despite her being a Rutgers alumni and Rutgers itself being a public school which must honor the 1st amendment, would go into it. Not only does nobody owns this wiki article, there is also a requirement to keep it neutral. Its not a university pamphlet or an advertising agency to include "extremely selective" accomplishments. I'd say include controversies. You're more than welcome to keep it short. μTalk01:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course we should include notable controversies! But how do we define "notable" in that context? What is important enough to warrant in an encyclopedia article that - as already said above - must summarize the entire history, organization, funding, accomplishments, and challenges of this institution that is over 250 years old? Typically, we ask ourselves questions like "Has this controversy received lasting, widespread coverage in a variety of reliable sources? Has or will it likely result in lasting change at the institution? Is this more than just current news or outrage stirred up by a small group of people?" Right now, I'm not coming up with favorable answers to those kinds of questions. Simply being associated with an official statement from the university does not cross the threshold of being important enough to include in this article. The institution produces lots of statements each year and I hope you can agree that we can't include them all nor should we include them all in this article! ElKevbo (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@ElKevbo:Muon is correct. If you are really agreeing with dedicating a controvery section with multiple controversies then you should also take a note of these controversies related to the university: "ZOA originally criticized Rutgers University for the attack on Marcus, who is the grandson of Holocaust survivors"[28], "The exposure of Magarelli's comments in the classroom comes as Jewish groups have criticized Rutgers University"[29], "FIRE also criticized Rutgers University in New Jersey for withdrawing funding and access to university facilities from a resident chapter of InterVarsity."[30]
No, I do not agree with the general idea of adding or retaining "controversy" sections in articles, including this one. Segregating those historical events into their own section is often a NPOV problem. It's also usually a disservice to readers to separate those events from the larger context that preceded and followed them. Finally, those sections often become collections of minor, one-off events that had no lasting impact but some editor thought they were important at the time (but never came back later to reevaluate or place into context) or included because they have a grievance against the subject.
We simply cannot and do not include all information that is published even in the most reliable of sources. It's usually best to only try to include controversies that have had or are certain to have significant, long-lasting impact. We cannot and will not include every day-to-day event, complaint, or accusation. ElKevbo (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Edit revert
Hello Kai445, you recently reverted an edit I made to the short description of this article, without providing an explanation. I shortened the s/d to what I considered to be its bare essentials, as an s/d should be. Why did you undo this? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I think its important to capture the multi-campus aspect in the description due to how RU is organized, and it seemed like an unnecessary edit. I've gone back and shortened it. -Kai445 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.pixeldelirium.com/view.php?area=photos&subarea=misc&image=/gallery/photos/misc/images/NoRUScrew.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
