Talk:Rutgers University/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is the first archive of the discussion page regarding the article entitled Rutgers University.

This material was archived in its entirety on 15 August 2006. —ExplorerCDT 23:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

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. -Sanbeg 18:40, 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.

Image:RutgersSeal.gif

old 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:Rutgers TSUNJ 1000x1000x3c.png, 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.

--Closeapple 06:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1174 or 1774?

It admitted its first students in 1771 and granted its first degree in 1174.

How is this possible? --cprompt

The 1174 has to be a typo. I believe it was 1774

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Football

I have put the image of the 1882 team in to the Football#Canadian and American football but there is an inconsistency between what is said there:

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.

And this page which says:

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.

The image is interesting because thre are 12 players and the ball seems to be a soccer ball. See also Talk:Football#Rutgers Vs. Princeton, 1869 --Philip Baird Shearer 11:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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 Football Association, 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.

"In order to score a goal, the ball had to be forced into a goal that was very similar to a modern soccer goal, crossbar and all. Rutgers was able to accomplish the feat six times on the day, while Princeton could only score four goals."Thad Hartmann, Wednesday, September 15, 2004, "Football is not quite the same after 135 years"

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)

[edit] 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?

Grant65 (Talk) 23:42, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

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 not the 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 | Talk 04:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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. Kevcowiffle 20:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 209.92.89.26 21:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.) 165.230.149.164 23:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

(Note: Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Brunswick%2C_New_Jersey", but it applies to Rutgers as well as New Brunswick for obvious reasons.)

[edit] Lost as usual?

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? --68.174.87.33 17:33, 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!) -- Jalabi99 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the name?

What is the origin of the name "Rutgers?" I can't find it in the article.

69.137.220.238 03:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Named after Henry Rutgers. It's in the article if you look closely. -Lethe | Talk 03:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Devil 22:51, 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)

[edit] Rutgers College

I merged in the Rutgers College article; it was a near-verbatim dupe of the "Queen's College" section of this one already. Rutgers College is now just a redirect to Rutgers University. /blahedo (t) 05:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sometimes counted as one of the Public Ivies

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.

I don't think it's go so far as to say "Rutgers is sometimes counted as one of the 'public Ivies' although it is not in Moll's original list of eight," that being unreasonably negative and Moll not being that much of an authority... but really only the College of William and Mary, Miami University, University of California, Berkeley, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Texas at Austin, University of Vermont, and the University of Virginia are "the" public Ivies. 11:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Task Force on Undergraduate Education

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.

[edit] Notable things

I'm surprised Philosophy, Waksman, and Milton Friedman aren't mentioned. They are some of the high points of RU. 70.111.251.203 02:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman? Founder of the "New Jersey School" of Economics? His connection with Rutgers is slight and overshadowed by his connection with another institution. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content at the Bottom

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 Devil 22:34, 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 Devil 08:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is too long. Doing daughter articles is standard practice for universities. -- JJay 00:34, 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

--Epeefleche 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RU Screw

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]. RossPatterson 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is still popularly used there (I am a current student and victim).--Jersey Devil 01:05, 28 May 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. -Sanbeg 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "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 | Talk 22:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Devil 01:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. —ExplorerCDT 05:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

"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

[edit] Songs

I think that the article would be improved by our moving the lyrics to the 2 songs to links. --Epeefleche 16:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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. —ExplorerCDT 16:42, 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?

--Epeefleche 17:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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.). —ExplorerCDT 18:56, 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... —ExplorerCDT 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Can anyone figure out how to fix the footnotes? There are multiples, it appears, with the same number .............. Tx.

--Epeefleche 23:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Reedit done 28 July 2006

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. —ExplorerCDT 18:21, 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.

Please, I beseech you, lay off already.

Thanks.

(And this has nothing to do with the Glee club).

--Epeefleche 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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. —ExplorerCDT 02:38, 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.

--Epeefleche 05:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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. —ExplorerCDT 05:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Metros232 17:20, 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. —ExplorerCDT 17:57, 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? Metros232 20:35, 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. —ExplorerCDT 20:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --ElKevbo 23:45, 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. --Epeefleche 01:51, 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. ;-) —ExplorerCDT 02:28, 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... --ElKevbo 02:39, 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. —ExplorerCDT 02:45, 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. --ElKevbo 02:51, 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). —ExplorerCDT 02:57, 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. --ElKevbo 03:06, 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. —ExplorerCDT 03:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks and uncivility. --ElKevbo 03:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to speak for ElKevbo and his "psychosis" but here are some other adequately cited university and school related articles: Duke University, Harvard University, Michigan State University, University of Michigan, Plano Senior High School, Stuyvesant High School. Metros232 03:27, 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. —ExplorerCDT 03:20, 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. Metros232 03:04, 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. —ExplorerCDT 03:08, 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. --Epeefleche 16:55, 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. —ExplorerCDT 18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the majority on this one. --Epeefleche 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added some {{fact}} templates in the "About Rutgers University" section where citations are needed to support the asserted facts. --ElKevbo 15:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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? Metros232 02:05, 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. —ExplorerCDT 02:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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). —ExplorerCDT 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be able to enlist some editors at the Wiki NJ Project WP:NJ. Metros232 19:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion, left a message on the talk page there. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mascot section

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. Metros232 23:26, 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. --ElKevbo 23:37, 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. —ExplorerCDT 00:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you typically reply to jokes with accusations of plagarism? --ElKevbo 00:16, 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. —ExplorerCDT 00:20, 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. Metros232 23:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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? Metros232 23:42, 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. —ExplorerCDT 23:58, 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. Metros232 13:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Task Force Report

This was misplaced at the top. Brought it down here. —ExplorerCDT 00:23, 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.--Epeefleche 23:45, 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. --Epeefleche 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/t/Talk%7ERutgers_University_Archive_1_fb55.html"