Jump to content

Talk:Tufts University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Vandalism

It seems likely to me that these pages (like most colleges and universities) will be a frequent target of vandalism... please bear in mind, should you find vandalism, that it's more useful to revert to a good previous version than to attempt to un-edit the vandalism. There's usually more involved than just the one you noticed (in the case of stuff I just reverted, eight or ten little changes.) Pjmorse 02:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Student Life, Culture, and Sports

Let's open the discussion on what to do with student groups: right now the a cappella groups enjoy their own special heading separate from any other student organizations. This doesn't make sense as there are many other popular student activities at Tufts that aren't recieving this special treatment. It seems to me that no student group should be mentioned in the main body of the Tufts entry unless it is important to defining the University...for instance, the Bubs might be mentioned by name in a section that discusses musical offerings at Tufts since the group is a big draw for some candidates for admission. It would, as an alternative, be perfectly appropriate to include links to groups that have their own Wikipedia entry but don't necessarily define the University in the 'See Also' section. Thus we eliminate the problem of merging the Mates' stub with the main article, since any info on the Mates can be linked to the See Also section. LGDubs 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also to be considered: the dubious graph about the sailing team which was recently added. - Pjmorse 02:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that someone should add a note about S-Factor, which is a new a capella group on campus. I don't know much about them however. Himynameistimli 05:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the Group of Six (Which includes the Africana Center, Asian American Center, International Center, Latino Center, LGBT Center, and Womens Center) play a large role in campus culture...

Also I think that something should be said about fraternities and sororities on campus...

And in addition to the part about the TCU Senate and student government, something should be said about Programming Board, which is the umbrella organization for all of the Class Councils, Film Series, Lecture Series, Concert Board, Entertainment Board, and TUSC (Tufts University Spirit Coalition) and maybe there could be little discriptions about each smaller ogranization. Like TUSC organizes many of the "spirit" events like the Homecoming Rally, and Tuftonias Day, and the Senior Class council is in charge of all the senior pub nights, and senior class gifts. I would try to write this stuff..but I'm real new/bad at this wikipedia stuff.

I'm pretty sure that the photograph that is labeled as the gospel choir is actually the a cappella group Essence.

Currently the student life section has been completely removed to another page. There needs to be at least a small paragraph for this section, it can't just redirect to a new section. At least some of the older student groups or activities should be listed there as well. What are we going to do about this? Guildsman (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge back

I propose that it be merged back here. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to vote against. There's a huge amount of material in Student life at Tufts University that made this article very long. There's ample precedent for branching this into a separate article: Student life at the University of Pennsylvania, Traditions and student activities at MIT, etc. I believe an overview paragraph works well in the main article, and the detail and lists that are inevitable should be relegated to a separate article, as is done in many other university articles. skeeJay (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
With so many weeks having passed, removing the template. skeeJay (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps make the summary of student life slightly better. I don't think the summation of student life is sufficient. 216.165.26.92 (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)User July 28, 2010

History

The opening paragraph is incorrect in stating that "Among its schools is the United States' oldest graduate school of international relations, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy." The Fletcher School was established in 1933 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fletcher_School_of_Law_and_Diplomacy), whereas Georgetown's School of Foreign Service issued its first graduate degree in 1922 (http://msfs.georgetown.edu/about/). 22:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshedits (talk • contribs)

I think fletcher uses the distinction that is graduate only. http://fletcher.tufts.edu/About/Fletcher-History. Not that either site is a great source for wikipedia. XFEM Skier (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Right, looks like we need to have some discussion about whether the history section does or does not belong. Present your arguments, folks. Pjmorse 23:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I created the history section on 1 December 2005, but I don't think that since then it's become either cohesive or complete. I'm for removing it until someone can give it the attention it needs. skeeJay 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
So...........no one has a problem with me removing it? skeeJay 17:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll play devil's advocate: I do think it's important, and possibly even necessary, that an article about an institution like Tufts explain its history. And I think we'll do better even with an uncohesive/incomplete section which might be edited by someone with some spare time and/or research than with no such section. So I'm in favor of it staying, perhaps with a bullet in the to-dos about what we'd like to fix. I'm still interested in pitching in, but I'm absolutely slammed by work, probably for the duration of the semester. My vote would be to leave it in with a to-do list notation, and if nobody has gotten to it by June or so, I'll head up to Tisch (assuming I ever see the outside of Halligan again) and do some research. Pjmorse 23:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got some time to work on history (and I can shoot some leafy-green summer campus photos as well, if that would be useful.) Do people have specific feedback about what kind of information they'd like to see in the History section? Pjmorse 13:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you all think that there should be a larger section dedicated to the history of jumbo? It's always mentioned in the tours, so maybe it's important? And what do you think about pulling different pictures from the tufts digital archives for the early history of Tufts. Also, do you think that we could upload the video for the capital campaign for tufts? I have it stored on my computer and I want to upload it somewhere where people can watch it. Himynameistimli


Does any one think it's important to note the massive steps Tufts has taken to rebrand itself? Like the new logo is the most obvious thing, but they've also taken steps to revamp their undergraduate admissions website. I think it's funny to know that the campus center was never completely finished. And JUMBO III is in the works! Lostmortal 07:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

structure

I'm planning on gradually updating this page to more closely conforms to the WikiProject Universities suggested structure (but not exactly; there are certain parts of the structure that I feel don't suit the school; e.g. a section on the 'Institution' instead of 'Organization' allows a broader description of the schools and campuses, a la the Harvard page). Also, to avoid another neutrality argument in the future, I want to remove some of the ambiguous propoganda that's in the article now (like that vague paragraph about Tufts' "mission") and add some balanced and frequently-documented criticism. I am a student of the school, but I feel like this stuff needs to be here in the interest of neutrality. Skeejay 15:20, 13 Oct, 2005 (UTC)

Skeejay, amazing work on this page! I haven't been here in a month, and you've worked wonders with it! It's surely shorter, but that encourages quality, moderated growth - much better than the sometimes-schlocky stuff we had up there before. Bravo, sir. I guess the best way to repay you would be to chip in with some extra information. Once I finish writing this Philosophy essay, I'll stop by and see what I can add. The image servers are down right now, so I can't see the photos we're using, but I've been taking some this semester with the intent of finding a place for them on this article. Watch for that and be sure to provide feedback, all. Anyway, well done, Skeejay! Coolhappysteve 07:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


Also maybe add a list of the abundant cultural organizations the university has - not all clubs though, just the prominent ones under categories for example ethnic groups, religious groups, political groups etc. Shaojian 19:48, 23 Oct, 2005 (UTC)

Um, distressed to see the "Tufts Goggles" changes, so I removed them. The Naked Quad Run also seems to be a controversial point, so I pulled it, but I'd agree that it fits in a discussion of campus traditions (so long as it's handled with some neutrality.)

There's clearly some unsettledness about the "campus diversity" section based on its tortured wording and attempts to present both sides, but I haven't been here long enough to feel justified in yanking any of it.

Skeejay, if you want help, let me know, particularly over winter break. Pjmorse 15:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Good points, Pjmorse. I think NQR definitely needs to be worked back in, as that's a pretty defining feature of campus culture. Dan 19:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, Pjmorse and Coolhappysteve. Some help would be great. What I was thinking next was completing the information on 'campuses' and then taking care of a 'history' section. Thanks for cleaning up some of the other idiocy; I thought the NQR section was fairly unbiased before 219.77.86.166's changes this morning, but you can check me on that before we restore it. Skeejay 22:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Re-added information about the NQR to 'culture.' Tried to make it unbiased; one sentence describing the event, and one citing the 2002 controversy. Let me know what you guys think. Changes to the paragraph should probably be discussed here before being added to the article. 130.64.87.226 04:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Is there any way that someone can add the Pumpkining of Campus in as one of the Tufts Traditions. I would except I am new at this and have this incredible fear of messing it up and looking like a fool TMcMahan 05:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

TMcMahan, I'm a grad student and my life is limited to Halligan (and a few other corners of campus.) Explain "The Pumpkining of Campus" to me here, and I'll make your words into something main-entry-worthy... if they aren't already. Pjmorse 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
TMcMahan, I agree that the pumpkining should be added. It is prominant and significant. (Every Halloween, the Tufts Mountain Club famously decorates campus by placing pumpkins in hilarious and absurd places.) For that matter, I've heard that the TMC moving the gravity rock around used to be a common tradition. Do you know anything about that? skeeJay 03:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to note that Tufttonia's Day is also Tufts' birthday? 130.64.99.136

boosterism

There's a huge amount of boosterism going on here lately, including the a cappella groups. As it stands right now, the Mates article is a stub (and has been marked for merging with this article) and the Bubs article is a biased mess. The best solution I can think of right now (short of giving each group their own article) is an article dedicated to the a cappella scene at Tufts. If no one has a real problem with that route, I'll implement in a couple of days. In the meantime, I'll move the merge notice to the Mates article, where I think it's better suited. skeeJay 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Tufts has a rivalry with Bates? Does Bates know? Pjmorse 14:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of boosterism, why is there now a whole section on Blackout, when none of the a cappella groups are mentioned individually? It's not even like the section mentions other step teams on campus.Sam927 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ex College has way to much text in "Organization;" by way of comparison, it gets a longer explanation than the entire Fletcher School. On top of that, it reads like promo material; needs to be seriously condensed. skeeJay (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

After 3 days with no objection, condensing Ex College paragraph. skeeJay (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please change the section which says " Class of 2012, a 3% decrease from the previous year's admissions rate.[25] Eighty-five percent of incoming freshmen ranked in the top 10% of their high school class. The average SAT score was 2122." This is a parody written by the TUFTS school-paper, and I'm surprised at how it ended up coming here. We have 2 more years until we enter 2012, and if you just check the resource, you will see what I mean. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.101.224 (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The section that the IP address mentioned above needs to be removed as the resource is a fiction story. http://www.tuftsdaily.com/2.5511/typical-yield-makes-for-ideally-sized-incoming-freshman-class-1.587198 please reassess this link. --DenizCc (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the accusations that the newspaper article is fictional or parody. Can you please explain what I'm missing? Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Boosterism in the section about rankings, has the SAT, in the past five years, gotten markedly easier? Because if not, these figures do not seem to add up at all. They claim 25% of their 2011 enrolling class got a 2300 or above, but in 2006 (http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/SATPercentileRanksCompositeCR_M_W.pdf) the total number of people to get a 2300 or above was under 5,000 (238 + 240 + 153 + 227 + 402 + 330 + 534 + 532 + 579 + 758 + 872 = 4,865). Given the percentages discussed in this section, their entry class that year was 3,734.34. So UNLESS the scores changed DRAMATICALLY between 2006 and 2011, given their '25% of our class' figure, Tufts claimed about 935 people of a pool of Less Than 5,000. So like, 1/5 of all the highest scorers that year chose Tufts, admittedly a Little Ivy, over Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Columbia, Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne, etc.? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.94.40 (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, 872 needs knocked off that 4,865 figure as, having looked at the article again, it explicitly says OVER 2300, not 2300 and up as I thought. Additionally having looked at the source I find no details to corroborate this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.94.40 (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of time has passed without the above points being disputed, so I'm knocking off the last two sentences of the 'Admissions' section, if that's all right with you. The second to last sentence shows similarly shaky logic. It gives the entering classes' composite SAT score, but upon looking at the source, it appears this figure must be derived from the overall classes' means on each section. There's no real way to draw a mean overall score from these broken-down section means. These will probably be driven up by high outliers (say, someone who performed *quite* well in math, but perhaps correspondingly poorly in the verbal sections). I don't think this extrapolation from the university's data is a responsible reproduction of the source material/good reporting, nor does it represent solid math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.94.40 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Tufts redirect and disambiguation

Currently, the entry for Tufts redirects here, and there is no disambiguation for other uses of Tufts at the beginning of this article. I'd suggest Charles Tufts and Sonny Tufts as other likely destinations, either in a disambig page or at the top of this entry (the latter assuming we keep the redirect). --Zippy 21:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. I would still have Tufts redirect here, especially because the VAST majority of inquiries will be concerning the university. But I think a link to a disambig line at the top of the page makes sense. (For that matter, the disambig page should probably have Tufts Health Plan on it....) skeeJay 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Reputation

Can someone add a section on Tufts' reputation (academics, athletics, and such)? I go to this school, so I'm not really NPOV.

I agree, little attention is focused on Tufts' academic reputation, aside from its' selectivity. Is this possible to fix in an update?

Reputation of Certain Programs

Can someone add a discussion and/or overview of some of Tufts' more distinguished programs, particularily in International Relations and pre-med?

- There should be a dedicated section pertaining to Academics as well.

Negative; not if we're going by anything close to the WikiProject:Universities. I'm not saying we should, I disagree with a lot of its suggestions, but it makes a good point: academics should probably be in the article about a specific school and not the entire university. skeeJay 17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


I respectfully disagree. MadZarkoff (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Publications

Arbitrarily deleting the Observer != NPOV. --Pjmorse 05:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Primary Source. You (and I) may disagree with what they say, but trying to silence them is not the answer. --Pjmorse 02:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is getting old. Here's the new rule: if you remove any publication, I'm going to revert your change unless you explain why (e.g. "They don't exist anymore," or similar solid explanation.) Likewise, edits to discussion of the Primary Source's sophomoric "satire" will be reverted, no matter how much I may agree with you, if you demonstrate a lack of NPOV by, say, deleting an entry from Campus Publications at the same time.

There's a place for discussion of this pathetic little episode; Wikipedia isn't it.--Pjmorse 22:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Photography

Look, I think a lot of the new photography looks gorgeous, but I question the informational value of some of it. Several of the individual photos come across as advertising the school instead of providing supplemental information or perspective. The "views of Tufts" section, particularly, is not part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities template and doesn't belong in the history section. Certain photographs (e.g. the one labeled "Carmichael Hall") are nice but certainly don't tell you ANYTHING visually about the campus or grounds. The new photographs, I think, need to be pruned for appropriateness. Any thoughts? skeeJay 06:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • ok, I'll take a look at the photos. I'm pretty new at wiki-ing, so I was just trying to help as best I could. I will try to include only photos that are helpful.
  • Hey, I think that the picture with the comment about the new music building doesn't correspond to the quote. It talks about the new music building, but I think that the picture is of cohen auditorium Himynameistimli 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I just cut a bunch of photos that I thought were the least descriptive; I also moved all photos to the right of the page to make it more readable (photos going from left and right make the page painful to look at in my opinion), and reduced the size of all images to be of maximum width 250 (some were unnecessarily HUGE before at up to 400px). Feel free to undo or discuss any changes I made that you don't agree with. --CapitalR 06:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the gallery was massively overkill, and fairly obviously advertising considering that all of the photos were attributed to university photography Melody Ko. I would argue that some of the photographs that have been removed had solid encyclopedic merit, including: the logo of Tufts Athletics; the former version of the official school seal; a thumbnail of the "cannon," an extremely prominent fixture on campus; and perhaps two campus shots that were illustrative in establishing the terrain and climate of the main campus. I'd point you back to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tufts_University&oldid=79655770 as an example of what I'd consider adequate photography. Let me know what your thoughts are. skeeJay 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The old campus seal might be a good candidate, especially if it doesn't still exist, and the logo probably as well-an uncopyrighted version really couldn't be made of that. The cannon and "terrain and climate" shots are replaceable fair use, though, as presumably the cannon still exists, and certainly the campus does, so they wouldn't work as fair use. What you might try, though, is to contact the school. They may be willing to GFDL release a few publicity shots, especially if you tell them it would be for use in their Wikipedia article. I've had good luck with this approach more than once. Publicity shots are intended to be widely distributed anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, that was how I obtained those two campus photos. (I thought I had added that to the license information.) They are publicly released publicity photos of the school. Not sure about the cannon, photograph, though, I will look into it. skeeJay 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Privatepony. Thanks for helping with the Tufts article. We've had a lot of issues with photography on this page in the past, so please discuss photographic additions on the Talk page before adding them. They're sticklers for making sure that the photography you add has complete copyright information, which your photos didn't. In addition, if we want to get the Tufts article to featured status, we should make sure that photography meets the guidelines in Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE, the WikiUniversities guidelines for articles on colleges. It seems like your photos were focused on foliage or random buildings, which is not notably descriptive. But feel free to make an argument for these photos on the Talk page. Thanks. skeeJay (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be more pictures of the university (like the president's lawn, the various libraries, etc.). I argue that other universities have this that are up to better quality articles and it gives a visual description of the campus. The only pictures that seem to be up are sketches. Can someone implement this? Thanks. 216.165.26.92 (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)User July 28,2010

Ad cleanup

This article is very much in need of some ad cleanup. It could've been (and for all I know, was) written and approved by the school's marketing department. I'll do some snipping and placing text into a neutral tone if I can find the time. I'm really not sure the massive picture gallery is necessary either, that just makes it look all the more like a prospective-student brochure. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm pretty sure it wasn't primarily written by anyone employed by Tufts, but surely by lots of people who attend or have attended (full disclosure: myself included). What sections do you think are most like an advertisement? The facts all seem correct to the best of my knowledge. --CapitalR 06:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Facts can be correct and the overall tone can still read like ad copy. For example, consider the following two statements:
  • "Consumer Reports rated Brand X Widgets as 'overall best in category' in 1998. However, since then, the ratings have slipped steadily downward, to 19th out of 50 in 2006." (this would probably be appropriate for an encyclopedia.)
  • "Consumer Reports agrees, you just can't beat Brand X Widgets! According to a 1998 article. Some restrictions, exclusions, limitations, and disclaimers may apply. Just because we said something doesn't mean we're really meant any of it." (this goes in an ad)
In both cases, the facts are true, per se, but it's all about tone and presentation. There was a whole lot of fair use imagery that I've removed, per the fair use policy-they were all decorative and most are very replaceable with free images. A lot more of it is written with subjective adjectives. (The a capella singer section was one, we don't need a list of every group. A very brief overview of the program might work.) The article should focus a lot more on what the college is, its verifiable history, its effect on the surrounding world, and very importantly, no boosterism in the tone. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I completely agree actually that this article was too much like an ad and contained too much superfluous information. Good working cutting down so far; I'll work adding more useful information later on. --CapitalR 12:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though cleanup on this article has stopped, and that most of the boosterism has been removed. Time to remove the template? Seraphimblade, should I go ahead and restore the Tufts seal and Tufts Atheletics logos we discussed? skeeJay 15:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

After 3 days with no objections, I'll remove the template and restore the discussed photos. skeeJay 15:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see the comment on watch. No objections. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was proper to remove all of the photos. While I could concede that a few of them could have been deleted, the majority of them offer great merit. I am from Montana, a long way from Boston. Like many students applying to universities, I utilized Wikipedia to research possible schools, and the most helpful pages were the ones with photos. I am a student at Tufts, and asked the school for those phots and put them up myself. Many schools have campus photos, and I see it fit for Tufts to have the same. A prospective student cannot trust with absolute certainty the written content of this page, he/she can however trust a photograph to give an honest representation of what the campus looks like. Certainly, what the campus looks and feels like is much more important to a student or visitor than some rubbish story about the cannon. Please reconsider what it is we are trying to do here. The purpose is to provide information. It lacks foresight and recognition of the times to exclude visual information from Wikipedia. While I agree some of the photos didn't offer much, many did. You removed photos of: the president's lawn, the academic quad, the library, a homecoming tradition, etc. Again, I go to Tufts, those few photos said more about Tufts than most of what is written on this page. Pmurph07 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If Tufts is willing to release those photos under the GNU Free Documentation License, the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license, or to the public domain, we can certainly use them. However, our fair use policy prohibits us from using photos under more restrictive licenses (including "no commercial use" licenses) for decorative purposes. Of course, if you go to Tufts, you could certainly do a few things-ask the school to license the photos that way, or snap some yourself (in which case you, of course, are the copyright holder and can choose to license them that way). Even so, though, this is an encyclopedia article, not a college brochure, and only a certain number will be appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is fair. I will contact Tufts. Pmurph07 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Developments

Would anyone consider adding a section about the Sophia Gordon Dormitory or the Granoff Music Center? Would it be appropriate to place it in this section? Lostmortal 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lostmortal, I believe it would be, especially considering the investment involved the uniqueness of the dorm. Any other opinions on this? skeeJay 15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this reference to the recent developments section: • Stalin-Esque Show Trial At Tufts University by Ben Shapiro, May 2, 2007 Asteriks 09:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how an opinion column - which, though it reports an actual incident, falls far short of Wikipedia's NPOV standards (not that opinion columns should be held to those standards, of course) - should be considered a "reference" for last December's (or this April's) Primary Source brouhaha. An external link providing more information or an alternative viewpoint, yes. A reference for factual statements? Questionable. Is there a way to include this link without misrepresenting its relevance? --Pjmorse 14:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The only real reason the Primary Source issue was added to Recent Developments is because it was covered in the national news. The followup ruling by Glaser wasn't, and probably doesn't belong here. Either way, the entire issue certainly doesn't warrant two separate paragraphs in this section. In general, this section needs to be pruned, IMO by getting rid of some 2005 references (not really recent anymore) and getting rid of some detail. I think the first step is to condense mention of the Primary Source thing considerably. skeeJay 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
With no objections after 3 days, condensing Recent Developments. skeeJay 22:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Someone deleted the article about Tufts University being on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's (FIRE) "red alert" list. www.thefire.org This information is accurate and sourced. If you disagree with FIRE's assessment or FIRE itself, post your response, or post things critical of FIRE's assessment. FIRE is non-profit, non-partisan, and has a board made up of respected First Amendment scholars so good luck with the criticism, but don't delete it. The information is highly relevant.

Hi there! I delete the information because, if you'd read the article, the incident your text described was already mentioned. Please read an article next time before you add stuff, to guard against redundancy. Also, the text was much too long for the gravity of what it described in the context of a university more than a century old. If you'd like to modify the existing description of the flap, and keep it to an appropriate link, go ahead. Also, please sign your posts with four ~s, User:Kelmicster. I've already advised you on this. Good day! Mdiamante (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you stop deleting it? It is relevant and sourced, plus it complies with Wikipedia standards. Try to be neutral and objective and stop allowing your personal biases to influence your reactions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelmicster (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You copied and pasted non-neutral and copyrighted material into the article (in this revision [1]), did not sign your comment and have still not addressed the fact that the article already referred to that controversy, so you'll excuse me if I reserve to myself the judgment of whether or not the text meets Wikipedia's standards. Until the original text pertaining to the flap is addressed, and the excess and non-relevant information on FIRE is removed, the added section doesn't belong. You do realize that no disciplinary action was even taken against the magazine or its editors? Mdiamante (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that Tufts policy on speech is highly restrictive and would never be Constitutional if it were enacted at a public institution don't you? You do realize that such policies are in the public interest and that disclosure of them to anyone who has a potential interest in Tufts is highly relevant don't you? You do realize that what is posted is not a duplication of copyrighted material don't you? (Apparently not because you suddenly became an expert on copyright law with your last response. I will give you a a hint, you should consult someone who actually knows about the subject before you label yourself an expert and say a copyright has been infringed) Reserve yourself all the judgment you wish, but it is clear that you do not want anything posted on the page that would subject your school to criticism. Well, too bad. The speech policy of Tufts is its policy, and it should (and will) be posted on Wikipedia. In the event Tufts changes its restrictive policy then you can question the relevance of the post. Until then, when you take it down, others will put it back up. Your bias is sickening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelmicster (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, and assume good faith. To respond to your concerns: You do realize that Tufts policy on speech is highly restrictive and would never be Constitutional if it were enacted at a public institution don't you? I certainly do, and further recognize that, as it is indeed a private university, such observations are neither out of the ordinary nor very relevant. You have still not addressed the original text pertaining to the controversy, though I have mentioned it several times. If a FIRE press release is not copyrighted, than I indeed erred in accusing you of copyright infringement; regardless, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to copy and paste a subjective opinion, as you did here [2]. To everyone and anyone else watching this page, I would appreciate opinions from users in addition to those of Kelmicster. Thank you. Mdiamante (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

First, when you state that a speech code such as Tufts is not "out of the ordinary" you are wrong, Tufts' speech code is indeed unique in its suppression or expression, thus the fact that it is one of only three universities in the entire United States to be listed on FIRE's red alert list. Out of the thousands of public and private schools in this country that have speech codes, only three are on that list and the fact that you think it is not "out of the ordinary" is simply unfathomable. Second, to say it is likewise not relevant is equally ridiculous. It is relevant precisely because it is one of only three universities in the U.S. who are on the list. As for assuming good faith, stop deleting my posts and try acting in good faith yourself. Post something under my addition that states you dispute it, or that that you find it not relevant, but when someone posts something that is sourced, and accurate, try to communicate with the poster FIRST before deleting. You see, I would never delete anything that you have posted (Nor have I ever). If you post something that I think is inaccurate I would call it to your attention, or get feedback from others first before taking any unilateral action on my own. Instead, you delete my additions and then tell me to "act in good faith." Cute, how your sense of logic works, but inaccurate nonetheless. Kelmicster (talk)

  • I am responding to a request for a third opinion. I've never edited here before and I'm not particularly familiar with the incident, only vaguely recalling it in the news. I've reviewed the article, the sources, the history, and it seems that the article did reference the incident, but certainly buried it; stating simply that it was reported that "a controversy had erupted" and leaving the reader with no idea what the controversy entailed. On the other hand, the additional material seems to go into unnecessary detail about the background of FIRE and basis for FIRE's opinions in general, it seems to be pushing FIRE's POV and if anything much of the material belongs in an article about FIRE. Both editors are getting a bit heated and really ought to let things cool down a bit. Failing to sign posts does not deserve a "warning" and both editors need to Assume Good Faith and work for a stronger article and not necessarily one that says what either of them thinks it should say. That being said, I suggest the original one liner be expanded to give a bit of detail about what sort of article was involved, the racial context it was placed in, and the action the University took because of the article - Kelmicster's second paragraph would serve as a good starting point for this. The first paragraph should probably be nixed or at least substantially pared down and woven in. I'm not sure that the controversy deserves its own heading - Recent Developments is probably the right place to put it. These are just my thoughts. They don't carry any particular weight beyond that of any other editor. In any case, I think this needs further discussion to determine consensus on this issue before any actual changes are made.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you Doug for the feedback. I modified the original post as you suggested to remove the POV you alluded to in your post. I think it addresses your concerns. I, likewise, think the article is relevant and agree completely that it should be included in the page under recent developments. Of course, the article is still being deleted. Kelmicster (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It wasn't deleted, it was merged into the "recent developments" section. Here's what I came up with:
On 12 December 2006, it was reported nationally (via the Associated Press) that a controversy had erupted on the Tufts undergraduate campus regarding two anonymous articles published in the undergraduate publication The Primary Source.[12] Two separate complaints resulted, and the university’s Committee on Student Life held that the Source's editors had in both instances violated university policy by harassing fellow students, prompting the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to protest on the basis that the ruling constituted inappropriate censorship. [13] The legality of these findings was not contested, and in neither case was any punitive action taken.[14]
      • I agree with Doug's suggestion that the controversy doesn't deserve its own heading. Please review the current article and comment on those changes before reverting the text. I've never disputed that the controversy should be mentioned in some form but the details, such as the titles and descriptions of the articles, are not IMO necessary to a general, encyclopedic understanding of the relevant concerns. Mdiamante (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      • First, what you posted is not at all an accurate and true representation of Tufts University in the TPS matter. There is no mention at all in your edit of Tufts' presence on FIRE's red alert list. Additionally, you state that no punitive measures were taken, but this is not true, as evidenced by the link on FIRE's webpage which cites articles in the Boston Globe, and other publications. Note specifically, "Glaser left intact the committee’s decisions that The Primary Source was guilty of harassment and creating a hostile environment in violation of the school’s nondiscrimination policy." http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8335.html Thus, Tufts did find the publication "guilty" of "harassment" and "creating a hostile environment in contradiction of Tufts' own speech code. This is what earned Tufts' inclusion on the "red alert" list. You see, when you use words like "guilty of harassment" and "creating a hostile environment in violation of the school’s nondiscrimination policy" such terms do represent the suppression of expression because of the chilling result to speech that occurs in their wake. TPS has been "judged" "guilty." Do you think this will encourage TPS to publish more satirical material or less? What about other publications? How many other publications have refrained from the Constitutionally protected activity of satire out of fear their publication will be labeled "guilty of harassment." Just because TPS was not banned or ordered to clean the windows of the school as punishment hardly means there are not serious and dire consequences to expression in light of what Tufts University did to a group that attempted to exercise their right of free speech. One can be adjudicated "guilty" and suffer the shame and secondary consequences of such an adjudication yet never be sentenced to prison. This does not mean "no punitive action was taken." Understand? This is why Tufts speech code is so severely repressive, why it was covered in the national media, and why FIRE placed Tufts on a highly exclusive list: Tufts is one of only three schools in the entire United States of America that is on their red alert list. For some reason, you find that insignificant, yet it is very much a "controversy" worthy of its own heading, and worthy of inclusion on the Wikipedia page. Second, you tell me not to repost what was written, you have consistently and methodically deleted every addition I have made, and yet I am expected to exercise restraint in not adding the content you deleted back? I do not know where you received your sense of logic, nor do I understand it. In your world, it is okay to delete the work of others because you disagree with their points, yet if one disagrees with your point, you expect the other person to act with restrain from the actions which you yourself engage in? Hmmm.... I think not.Kelmicster(talk)

I'm starting to wonder if one or both of you aren't checking your clocks to see if you can revert again with violating 3RR. That's half in jest because I've tried to come here and be and remain impartial, I don't really care. I suggest you both stop making any changes to the text, leave it the way it is, don't worry about who's version is up there right now, and we sit back and discuss for a few days. Maybe someone else who does care will come along and say "hey, that's not right" and come here and join us.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's compare

I think I have these correct:

Mdiamante's new version (with footnotes written out):

  • On 12 December 2006, it was reported nationally (via the Associated Press) that a controversy had erupted on the Tufts undergraduate campus regarding two anonymous articles published in the undergraduate publication The Primary Source.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/05/10/university_panel_says_student_parody_harassed_blacks/</ref> Two separate complaints resulted, and the university’s Committee on Student Life held that the Source's editors had in both instances violated university policy by harassing fellow students, prompting the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to protest on the basis that the ruling constituted inappropriate censorship. <ref>[http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8045.html FIRE's “Red Alert” page]</ref> The legality of these findings was not contested, and in neither case was any punitive action taken.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2007/09/04/News/Glaser.Overturns.Portion.Of.Csl.Decision.Against.Primary.Source-2948786.shtml | title=Glaser overturns portion of CSL decision against Primary Source | publisher=''[[The Tufts Daily]]'' | accessdate=2008-01-12}}</ref>

Kelmicster's new version:

  • Tufts University is on the Red Alert because of an incident that occurred in May of 2007 in which Tufts University found that The Primary Source (TPS), a conservative student newspaper, violated the school’s harassment policy by publishing two satirical articles during the past academic year. In December 2006, TPS published a satirical Christmas carol entitled “O Come All Ye Black Folk,” which sparked controversy on campus because it harshly lampooned race-based admissions. Despite a published apology from TPS on December 6, 2006, a Tufts student filed harassment charges against the publication in March. Similarly, other Tufts students filed harassment charges in response to TPS’ April 11, 2007 piece entitled “Islam—Arabic Translation: Submission,” a satirical advertisement ridiculing Tufts’ “Islamic Awareness Week.” The advertisement consisted of factual statements about Islam and Islamic history. The two complaints, consolidated for a hearing before the university’s Committee on Student Life, resulted in a decision holding that TPS had violated university policy. Breaking Promises of Free Expression, University Punishes Student Publication for Political Satire

Let's start here. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of these are slightly better than before, I think, but neither gets at the problem. The first continues to gloss over (IMO) the facts of the incident, the second continues to focus on FIRE and their "Red Alert List" not Tufts, the topic of the Article. Maybe we can work to bring these two version closer together, strip out some chaff, flesh out some details, maybe not and you two can see who hangs around longer - it sure won't be me. :) --Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to put some time into a possible version of my own tomorrow, but for the time being I would note that the first rule should be WP:V. Kelmicster's version appears to cite only FIRE's website, not really a "reliable third-party source" particularly for the first paragraph where it's really a first-party source. This isn't to say all the material isn't relevant or can't be sourced, but I'm wary of a single source for the entire section when the source is part of the story.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Thanks for your feedback. I do respectfully disagree with the assertion that the FIRE controversy does not warrant its own section. If it were a standard discriminatory speech code, and a simple case of a student group protesting university action I would agree that it is relevant and should be covered, but perhaps not in its own section or heading. However, in this case, Tufts speech code is so unique in its oppression that it has been placed on a red alert list with only three other school in the United States. Johns Hopkins University and Valdosta State University have their own controversy sections, and I think Tufts should as well. As to the source, I thought the links in the FIRE article were valid, but if you would prefer citations to other third parties then you can use these:

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=1985 http://dbe928.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/12/1223323-fires-red-alert-list-universities-that-abuse-basic-freedoms-include-tufts-johns-hopkins http://www.patownhall.com/group/39 http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1009058 http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18823820&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=597345&rfi=6 I think any of these will work as secondary sources. By the way, FIRE links to some of these sources, thus I think the link to FIRE was appropriate, but these other sites do lack the POV you alluded to in your earlier response. Again, thank you for your feedback, and I look forward to reading your proposed modifications.

    • Thank you for your feedback also, Doug - after the latest round of edits, I agree that things were getting out of hand, and am surprised that few others seem to have edited or commented on this section. I think that, in any case, one paragraph should suffice to cover the issue, and that it isn't deserving of its own section. The John Hopkins and Valdosta controversies involved a year-long suspension and an expulsion of individual students based on Facebook posts; Tufts' invovled the censure of a magazine funded and, by extension, operated, by the university. (That university publication, not students, faced the charge.)

Kelmicster is correct (and I was wrong) in that this was a punitive measure, on a philosophical level if nothing more, but hardly (IMO) comparable to the other controversies. Kelmicster further suggests that Tufts' discriminatory speech code is not normal, but it's my impression that the controversy is over the CSL committee's ruling rather than the code itself - hardly an insignificant distinction in a conversation as philosophical as this.

    • If the code itself is abnormal, I'd like to see a reference for it. If, as I suspect, the code itself is pretty common among private universities, it would seem to me that one paragraph, not a section, concerning these two incidents, would suffice. I also think that the articles in question should be neither named nor described unless they're described in detail, with quotes from both sides. Since FIRE's complains concerns not so much those articles but Tufts' response, however, I'd say that they're not notable enough to be named at all. WP:N#TEMP; neither FIRE link discussed the articles in detail, so do their titles and subjects satisfy notability guidelines? This is an encyclopedia entry, not a history book. Mdiamante (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, I think the external links are gratuitous. If people want to know FIRE's stance, the can look up the footnotes; that's what footnotes are for. Above all, at this point, I'd like to see some other editors' thoughts. Mdiamante (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Me too! Three people is difficult to call consensus - even if everyone agreed, you two aren't the only ones working on this article I don't think. It doesn't seem like a big enough issue to WP:RFC, but it needs broader examination. I'm posting a request for more input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. My proposal hasn't made it onto, let alone off of, the drafting table yet, as I have real world stuff to take care of. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm still curious as to what your version would look like, Doug. Here's one I came up with. It makes the links footnotes, doesn't give a whole paragraph to the views of a single organization, and doesn't repeat facts or include extraneous information.
      • In May of 2007, Tufts' Committee on Student Life found that The Primary Source, a conservative student publication funded by the Office of Student Activities, violated the school’s harassment policy by publishing two satirical pieces during the 2006-7 academic year. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education protested, saying the ruling showed a "profound disregard for free speech".[1]
    • Here's a letter that FIRE sent to Tufts' president. It calls the publication in question, which is funded by the University through students' tuition, "independent". By that standard, Fox News is "independent" from News Corp. I thus don't think FIRE's opinion really deserves a whole section in an encyclopedic article on a university comprised of many different schools, and over a hundred years old. Mdiamante (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree on that assessment, even if they were truly "independent", it wouldn't deserve a whole section - there is an article on FIRE that might be an appropriate place, but that's another question altogether. Your version sounds better but I do think it needs some mention of the racial character. I've been tied up with the real world and haven't had time to give it much more thought lately, hopefully soon.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mdiamante’s revision is not sufficient because it doesn’t mention the fact that Tufts is on FIRE’s red alert list, nor does it explain with sufficient detail the events surrounding the controversy. This is highly relevant, and far too significant to be deleted from any post. Questioning FIRE’s independence is fine, but do it in the article. Many stories and links on Wikipedia reference non-politically affiliated non-profit groups that are organized like FIRE. Thus, the grounds for stating FIRE’s inclusion of Tufts on a highly exclusive list are not relevant fall on deaf ears. (At least by this poster, which is why you will continue to see the re-posting of the “Controversy” section when it is deleted. If you question FIRE’s independence, and have sources to demonstrate FIRE is merely a tool for some other means, then cite the relevant sources. Many articles contain disclaimers about the impartiality of a source. Include one here if you think it deserves it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelmicster (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I said that The Primary Source, not FIRE, is not "independent". You've accused me of claiming that FIRE is a subsidiary of Tufts University, which is not a correct assessment of my statement. As for your obsession with FIRE's "red alert" list, please modify the previous edit, which Doug and I have discussed, instead of unilaterally reverting to old edits. I've shown a willingness to compromise in good faith. Will you? Mdiamante (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • My mistake. I thought your recent addition was in reference to FIRE's not being independent. In my defense, I don't think your aforementioned post made it clear. My apologies for so assuming. However, I would hardly say you've shown a, "willingness to compromise" as you have consistently deleted my additions. Indeed, you are the one who should show a, “willingness to compromise” as you delete anything that you disagree with. I have edited your most recent addition to include two things: (1) the background and factual information regarding the dispute between TPS and the school, and (2) the fact that Tufts is on FIRE's red alert list. These two additions are critical. In my opinion, the fact that Tufts is on FIRE's red alret list, is deserving of a special category of "controversy." This seperate distinction is present on the Wikipedia entries of both John Hopkins and Valdosta State. In the edit, I just did, I deleted the "controversy" part. I did this in the spirit of co-operation. Of course, we will see how "willing" you are to "compromise" in whether of not you decide to delete it. Be advised, if you unilaterally delete my additions and revert back to your description, I will assume you have no willingness to compromise, and I will edit the article as I see fit. Indeed, even Doug alluded to the fact that your post did not adequately describe the event. Now, to be clear, whether or not TPS is “independent” from Tufts University is completely irrelevant to why Tufts speech code is the way it is, or why Tufts is included on FIRE’s red alert list. If you want to point out that TPS is a “university owned” publication or whether you think this status has some bearing on why Tufts is on the red alert list then be my guest. It is not relevant to the FIRE additions. Kelmicster (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Aye, I could have been clearer re: the independence matter. I've just made a version that recognizes both your (1) and (2) points, partly on Doug's advice. I hope this brings us closer to a mutually satisfying account. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    I think the versions are converging and the edits are a lot more cooperative. I personally think the current version spends too much time on the entire issue and FIRE's red alert list but I won't tamper with it - I may still post my own suggestion here but it may no longer be necessary. I did remove a sentence that had a lot of wiggle words in it (in both of your versions) and didn't have a cite.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I am satisfied with the version in place now. I think it should have its own "controversy" section, but in the spirit of compromise, I will leave it alone. Very best, Kelmicster (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.157.143.203 (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree with Doug that the coverage is a bit too long, but after looking at it with fresh eyes a few days later don't really see where it could be pared down to our mutual satisfaction. Maybe a third party will find a way somewhere down the line. Thank you for your time, Doug, and best wishes, Kelmicster. Glad we could come to an agreement. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Omidyar money

I've seen this one mistakenly edited several times, and it seems to need noting. Pierre and Pam Omidyar have made two large gifts to Tufts. The first, $10M in 2000, is cited with the Tisch College section; the second, $100M in 2006, is under Recent Developments. The Tisch College one has been "corrected" to $100M several times. Please don't bother doing it again? --Pjmorse 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Context in the intro

Cuivienen, I certainly agree that the information you've added to the intro paragraph is true, but the intro is not the correct place for it. Lots of what you're adding seems to be details and context more appropriate for sections on the page as opposed to the intro, which should be brief and to-to-the point, pointing out the major aspects of the university. Phrases like "the modern incarnation of the Universalist church" and "a Franco-American nutritionist" are generally not appropriate in the Wiki format, since they don't provide crucial context and the user could easily just click on the Wikilink to get that kind of extraneous information. The inline citation of the Newsweek Kaplan College Guide is already provided as a footnote reference and should not be inline within the intro.

If you'd like to discuss these changes further, I'm all for it. skeeJay 17:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone should restructure this page.

Somebody should rearrange the page into the structure defined by the "Structure" section on the WikiProject Universities page. J. Finkelstein 04:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, for the most part. I moved the History section to the top, followed by the Campuses section. I didn't change the names of the headings that differ from the WP:UNI recommendations (e.g. Institution, Culture and student life), largely because I glanced over it and noticed that it may require some shuffling of content (because, for example, there is already an "Organization" subheading under "Institution"). Maybe someone who's more familiar with the article can do so? ~ Danelo 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll start an effort to get this done; I'm familiar with the article and would like to raise it to an A on the WikiProject Universities quality scale. skeeJay (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia Section

What do people think of just removing the trivia section completely? --Aaronp808 00:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Safety School

Hi. An anonymous user keeps removing the Seinfeld reference where Elaine says that Tufts was her safety school. Anonymous edits are cool and all, but it seems like one guy who has a thing against it being included. I see no reason not to include it, for it doesn't really make Tufts look bad, and it is very funny. Comment? Zweifel (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to keep reverting its removal until someone makes a compelling argument here. skeeJay (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Student Groups

Perhaps mention the Beelzebubs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.59.141 (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Raising WikiProject:Universities quality to a B

I'd like to start an effort to raise the quality of this article to (at least) a B on the Universities/Assessment quality scale. We were there before, but we've let it slide somewhat. In the short term, I think the first steps should be finalizing the structure so it matches the WikiProject University guidelines as much as is reasonable, updating statistics such as the endowment, and pruning the long-winded sections (I'm obviously thinking specifically about the Primary Source controversy in Recent Developments, which is no longer recent, nor, I think, particularly notable).

I think we've done a good job so far of avoiding boosterism and random mentions of minor student groups, so we should keep that up too. Does anyone have other suggestions for how we can work towards Feature quality? skeeJay (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Add more pictures of the school that are relevant (the libraries, the campus itself, alumni). Also give more of a summation on the templets for student life and tufts in popular culture. Finally, make it flow better--on certain sections, there seems to be just a list of things (like the academic reputation) that could be better structured as well as other sections. 216.165.26.92 (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)User July 29, 2010

logo versus seal usage

Hi there! This is a really solid article, one that I think could pretty easily be developed into a Good Article. However, I think there's a problem with the logo and seal usage, one that I've boldly solved on my own. However, I wanted to leave my thoughts here on the talk page.

Per non-free content criterion #3A, "multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Unfortunately, both the logo and the seal serve the same purpose (merely to illustrate the university's visual identity), and thus there's no justification to include both in this article. I've left only the logo in the infobox, as it incorporates the seal. I suppose I could see an argument for including the seal over the logo, but I don't think you can reasonably argue for the inclusion of both. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Esrever, thanks for your help. Smart thinking with the logo, I think it was the right move. If you've got any more suggestions on how to improve the article further, I'd love to hear them. skeeJay (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The seal currently being used at the top of the page is also outdated (dove had 7 feathers in old seal, while it has 5 in the new seal); though the old one can still be found around the campus, all new instances of the university seal use the version at the bottom of the info box. Perhaps someone can come up with an updated large version of the seal. Cheers for an overall good article. Pressuredrop16 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
To summarize the official rules, the seal should never be used on the web, the version of the seal currently at the top of the infobox is out of date, the circular component of the logo (the circle with text to the right but not around it, currently at the bottom of the infobox) should never be used in absence of the text, and the version I just linked to is up-to-date and about as high a resolution as we can use with copyright issues (more Wikipedia's than Tufts'). While it's unfortunate that we won't be able to show the circular element at as high a resolution as before, getting rid of the old seal and moving the newer image up is both in compliance with Tuft's visual identity rules and reduces the number of fair use images on Wikipedia. Anyone see why we shouldn't do it? HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It's been a week, so I went ahead and did it. old image is up for deletion. HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Medford/Somerville

I suggest changing the location to Medford in the opening paragraph and infobox. The fact that part of the campus is over the line in Somerville is addressed further in the article and that can remain. The wording in the opening sentence as it now stands is both awkward and misleading since there is no actual place known as "Medford/Somerville." Further, the mailing address of Tufts is in Medford and I believe most people think of the campus as existing in Medford. --Crunch (talk)

i agree.--98.113.187.11 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ATO of Massachusetts

I propose to switch ATO of Massachusetts from being referred to as a coed group to its actual classification as a frarority. The suggested positive benefit of using the term coed group is clarity.

However, in using the term, there are major drawbacks. Foremost, we sacrifice some level of factual accuracy. ATO of Massachusetts refers to itself as a frarority (as it admits both males and females), not a coed group. Furthermore, the frarority classification of the group is something the organization itself is rather proud of. It makes them unique, coed group implies something less than a traditional greek fraternity or sorority. In regards to clarity, yes the term is unfamiliar to most people, however, I would bring attention to three points. (1) Prospective students and other parties interested in learning about Tufts deserve to recognize the various distinct characteristics of the University. The presence of a frarority on campus is something that distinguishes Tufts from most other Universities. All (okay a vast majority) of Universities have coed groups, few have frarorities. (2) As stated before, the term coed group implies something less than the traditional greek system, and therefore may result in further confusion as to what exactly the coed group's operation in the greek system is. Frarority, clarifies that it functions exactly as fraternities or sororities do, just with mixed genders. (3) If confusion is still the primary concern, consider briefly that campus tours refer to ATO of Massachusetts as a frarority. The fundamental role of campus tours are to educated potential students about the school, they too strive for clarity. If campus tours embrace the term as easily understandable, so to should wikipedia. Bmarkopolo (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It defeats the very purpose of an encyclopedia if we use obscure or unique language in articles. If there are reliable sources that describe this unique term, it might be appropriate to add a sentence noting that the organization has a unique name for itself. But in the absence of such sources, we need to insist on sticking with language that readers will understand.
The Manual of Style says it this way: "The goal is to make Wikipedia easier and more intuitive to use. Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion. Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." ElKevbo (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with sticking with more general language. I had no idea that "frarority" was even a word until I saw it in this discussion. And I said that last sentence just to make the point about unnecessarily lack of clarity. --Yousowiki (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
A few of comments.
  1. I can't find anything officially using frarority from either Tufts University or ATO of massachusetts.
  2. I'm not sure on it being red-linked, while it is over a century old (including its time in the National), I'm not sure it meetings single school GLO notability, it may.
  3. The Chicago Tribune was using "Frarority" in 1987, so there is room to dispute it being a Neologism. (go to news.google.com, look in the archives for it.)
So my suggestion is simply to have it as "ATO of Massachusetts (co-ed)".Naraht (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sibling" rule

I've removed the line about the so-called "sibling rule." There was no evidence provided with the original edit, and it is contradicted by Tufts' own admissions people. http://tuftsdaily.com/news/2010/11/02/should-legacy-matter/ Prof. Mc (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tufts 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Toft or tufts?

Which is it? Beanachew (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Breaking Promises of Free Expression, University Punishes Student Publication for Political Satire
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tufts_University/Archive_1&oldid=1136413952"