Talk:Rutgers University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Rutgers University has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WikiProject Rutgers
 This article is part of WikiProject Rutgers, a WikiProject to constructively prepare and present information associated with Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (also known as Rutgers University). If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)
Flag of New Jersey
NJ Portal

Rutgers University is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
ExplorerCDT (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.


Archive

Archives
#1 November 2004 to January 2007

Contents

[edit] WikiProject Rutgers

FYI: I've started a WikiProject, hopefully to be under the auspices of the New Jersey and Universities WikiProjects to direct efforts to articles related to Rutgers University, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rutgers. —ExplorerCDT 16:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

A very solid article. Very few content issues at all. I say look over my suggestions, maybe one more copyedit, then it looks ready for FA nomination.

  • Logos needs fair use rationale. Also, there might be an issue about the seal being too large to be considered fair use. (On an unrelated note, might want to remove the logo from your userpage and that violates fair use criteria #8.)
  • The use of Milton Friedman's image on this page violates fair use criteria.
  • Specify a source for how many lives streptomycin has saved.
  • May want to double check my punctuation, but are two periods needed after John McComb, Jr.?
  • "Later, University College (1945), founded to serve part-time, commuting students and Livingston College (1969), emphasizing the urban experience, were created." This sentence seems a little awkward to me.
  • Fix ref spacing. Refs should be placed outside of spaces. I saw numerous instances where the ref was before the period and where there was a space between the period and the ref.
  • There is a parenthesis issue in the "Diversity and locations" section.
  • May want to fix the citation needed in the Alumni section before going for FA.

Let me know if you have any questions.--NMajdan•talk 18:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll: Which name to be used?

Should we name this article Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey or Rutgers University? Naming the article just Rutgers is not an option, since it has to have the "university" quality in some way shape or form.

Rationale:

  1. The Institution was known as Rutgers University from 1924 to 1956 when it was renamed Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, which it has used 1956 to present. (Before that it was Queen's College 1766 to 1825 and Rutgers College 1825 to 1924) but even those weren't technically correct given the institution's charter and legislative actions (it's official corporate name in 1766 was The Trustees of Queen's College in New Jersey)
  2. Most t-shirts and promotional items just say Rutgers or Rutgers University, but Degrees, letterheads, websites, are officially instructed to say Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (see [1] and [2])
  3. Official, self-identifying name of the institution is currently Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
  4. The "Rutgers Law" which makes the institution the State University (NJSA 18A:65-1 et seq.) just says that it is called Rutgers, The State University, but allows for permutations The University and The State University of New Jersey[3]
  5. Google Results: 906,000 for "Rutgers University" (minus "state") [4] and 759,000 for "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey" [5] so arguably, the spirit of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) would lean toward Rutgers University.
  6. There's currently a big debate going on about whether to use a common or official name for an institution or entity, we should wait until it's resolve, or we could admit that it likely will never be resolved.
  7. Redirects are cheap and easy.

[edit] Support

(This article should be renamed to Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, with Rutgers University redirecting)

  1. —ExplorerCDT 08:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC) (I'm inclined to think Official Names should trump Common Names)

[edit] Oppose

(This article should remain at Rutgers University, with Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey redirecting)

  1. The naming convention is to use the most common name. Wikipedia consistently eschews using full formal names. Official names do not trump common names. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is a redirect, not an article. Turdus migratorius is a redirect, not an article. Moby Dick; or, The Whale is a redirect, not an article. Rutgers is frequently referred to as "Rutgers" and frequently referred to as "Rutgers University." But is almost impossible to imagine anyone referring to Rutgers as "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey" except at the top of a letterhead or on a diploma or in a legal paper. To move it would be pompous and pedantic... and, as you note, clearly outside the spirit of the naming convention. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • ExplorerCDT says on my talk page that Turdus migratorius is not a good example, because apparently the issue of common versus scientific zoological nomenclature is in dispute. So I was going to replace it with another, but unfortunately the first two that came to my mind didn't turn out the way I wanted—New World Symphony redirects to Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák), not the other way around, and Quaker, a familiar term, redirects to Religious Society of Friends, which is quite unfamiliar to people who aren't QuakersFriends. So, in the interest of intellectual dishonesty, I'm not going to mention those counterexamples. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Explorer, have you prepared a resumé or CV in the last decade or so? What form of Rutgers' name did you use on it? (My own does say Massachusetts Institute of Technology rather than MIT.) Dpbsmith (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've wrtiten that my B.A. came from Rutgers College, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey on my curricula/resumes since 2000, including not only the long form but my degree-granting residential college affiliation because RC has more stringent admissions and graduation requirements (and historical significance being the 1766 core of the university) than other residential colleges like the affirmative-action/civil rights baby "Livingston College", founded in 1969. Though, I am jealous and feeling inferior because my ancestors who attended before Rutgers was annexed by the state not only got to use A.B., but received degrees that were vellum and inscribed in Latin. —ExplorerCDT 17:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Like Dpbsmith stated, the Wikipedia naming conventions ask us to use the most common name of institutions rather then official ones. I think people are most likely to search for "Rutgers University" when looking for this page rather than "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey" and that is what is most important.--Jersey Devil 18:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's rather funny that you raised the idea of a name change last time around (see archive), and I opposed. Now I raise the issue and you oppose. Odd. Don't forget, redirects are cheap. —ExplorerCDT 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. I am inclined to disagree with the idea of officialdom trumping common usage (for example, my arguing over the planethood of Pluto after Pluto got plutoed). In this case, the shorter version of the name is more likely what folks are going to be looking for, and thus it makes more sense to keep the article where it is. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose rename per WP:COMMONNAME and Dpbsmith above. — mholland 17:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Extra Non-Vote Commentary

  • Just to note, I did disagree with such a move last time someone brought this up. Convictions change. —ExplorerCDT 10:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "What? Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."—Whitman Dpbsmith (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • In this world second thoughts, it seems, are best. —Euripides —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RU Screw

In 1982, a move by the administration to decentralize the faculty, while heavily protested, was successful.[5] However... red tape and confusion, known among students as the "RU Screw."[18]

1) Screw not new in '82. The phrase "Rutgers Screw" was in WIDE common use when I arrived in 1972. My wife agrees. Fashion may have shifted to "RU Screw", whatEVER, not new news.

2) The 1982 action combined faculty, not "decentralize(d)" them. Independent departments at Livingston, Rutgers (main), and Douglass were merged into single departments. Read the protest sign at http://ruweb.rutgers.edu/timeline/1980a.htm and http://ruweb.rutgers.edu/timeline/images/1980a1.jpg "decentralization not centralization"

3) I don't recall the protests as "heavy", but objective references may not exist.

4) NPOV: be careful about taking protests too seriously. Everything gets protested by somebody. Rutgers has a vast Silent Majority. I believe (without citation) that the majority of students and faculty saw potential benefit in the change (or didn't care). One Chair was VERY excited to have access to better facilities. Obviously there was disruption and disturbance (that Chair got moved to a damp basement office and lost his Chairmanship and a lot of autonomy). But I feel the Balkanized campus-level departments were generally strengthened by merging.

5) It is too soon to say what the current reorganization really means. It turns out the 1982 action merged the Faculty but not the Colleges. College Deans set requirements and granted degrees but the faculty worked for FAS (now SAS). You'd have to work at Rutgers to understand. The current reorganization appears to finish what the 1982 upheaval started: the historical Colleges will fade, become Residential Colleges. For most students, it will be a non-event. It may simplify things for a few, not that they'd notice.

6) A much greater upheaval happened 2 years back. "All Funds Budgeting". RU presents a neat budget summary to State and Board. But the fine details were highly informal, historical, whimsical, political. Much as Ford Motor rationalized the books after WWII, Rutgers changed school and departmental accounting to be tied to tuition monies. This has been a boon to some and a disaster to others. Some subjects are all lecture, others are a lot of hands-on and expensive supplies. Like all drama at RU, it will take years to see how this plays out.

7) Did I miss mention of the old Governor's whim to merge ALL the state schools? I know that idea ran hot then cold. When hot it was a real hot-potato issue. Between scandal at the Gov and scandal at That Other School, it's probably been dropped.

8) You can try to objectively understand RU, and go mad; or just cover the solid basics without delving in the murk. The 1982 reorganization is of interest only because of the the current reorg; after that is done neither reorg is of lasting interest except to old man McCormick, and he's not with us now. While I agree that Wikipedia may handle current events, I'd rank RU reorg as fairly uninteresting to the general public, and very poorly understood or documented.

PRR 68.239.136.129 06:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this why Rutgers dumped men's crew as a varsity sport? Because they were annoyed over the Rutgers Screw?

hmmm. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the Rutgers Hos?

Where are the Rutgers Hos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.221.52 (talk) 22:11, April 12, 2007

You're going to have to rephrase your question if you really want an answer. Otherwise I have to assume that you're simply engaging in more vandalism and looking for attention. --ElKevbo 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Recentism. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This might have been recentism but it did cause Don Imus to lose his job and in the course of his long career it will always be THE mark of what was his eventual termination.

Those are basketball players, not hos; I saw 'em face-to-face just before the Imus crap erupted. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So why did RU turn down Ivy membership back in the 1950s?

Just curious. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was because they wanted to remain more accessible to NJ residents (fee wise), but I may be wrong. Rutgers is one of only two colleges to turn down an Ivy League Invitation. Amishjedi 23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Amishjedi

What was the other school? 204.52.215.107 03:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think Rutgers was ever offered Ivy membership? The Ivy League is not based on a coincidence in founding dates, it is based on the fact that those schools had played each other for decades and declined to offer football scholarships. The Ivy League is an athletic league -- it does not institute tuition requirements for regular students. This idea that two schools were ever offered Ivy membership sounds like a myth. --Editing 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Then would someone explain why I first learned about that "myth" on microfilm in the Alexander Library? 204.52.215.107 03:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Rutgers did play many games with Princeton. The age coincidence is because the most prominent universities are old universities, and back then there weren't many with that historic legacy to form an athletic league so I imagine they were grabbing up as many as they can. I'm sure you can get a reference somewhere on the Rutgers website for them being offered a league membership. I'm not ruling out the possibility it is a myth, but given that I've heard the story from many reliable officials at Rutgers, I'd take it as fact until I find proof otherwise. (this is not believing until proven wrong, it is a matter of being given proof (in the form of authorative statements) and so believing until finding overriding proof) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 23:14, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia has lately claimed that the account of Rutgers and the Ivy League was a "hoax". This is what happens when Conservapedia editors don't do their research diligently - they just dismiss stuff out-of-hand in an effort to slander Wikipedia and its editors, and this should only serve to embarrass Conservapedia. Next time, do research before claiming it's a hoax, or at least back up your claims with solid information! 204.52.215.107 04:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim that it was a hoax comes from Conservapedia's article on Wikipedia. 204.52.215.107 04:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

:A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in this story:

::You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."[37]

For the record, I don't quite consider it a dumb mistake - the Ivies are private schools, and Rutgers is a state school, and it might have stuck out as somewhat of a misfit. As for the idea that it was a false statement, that would be an accusation that the student newspaper Daily Targum, under whatever names it used over the years, lied multiple times over several years, for starters...204.52.215.107 04:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source (such as minutes or reports of the Ivy Group of Presidents or the Rutgers administration) that says Rutgers asked to be let into the league and was turned down? Was Rutgers offering football scholarships in 1954? If so, it had no reason to ask to join the league. Was it really playing the other ivies regularly in football?

--Dartmothian (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The myth that some microfilm in Alexander Library mentions Rutgers once being invited to join the Ivy League has been successfully debunked at [Ivy League]. The Ivy League does not appear to have ever offered membership to any school other than those that make up its eight original members.Dartmothian (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any hard facts on this, but there is evidence that Rutgers would have initially been involved the discussion of who would be in the league. The fact that it was one of the 9 colonial colleges (7 of whom eventually became part of the Ivy league), and an athletic opponent of most of those since the late 1800s, makes it plausible. Plus, the following supports the idea that Rutgers was considered one of the crowd: "However, representatives from four schools, Rutgers, Princeton, Yale and Columbia met at the Fifth Avenue Hotel in Manhattan on 19 October 1873 to establish a set of rules governing their intercollegiate athletic competition, and particularly to codify the new game of college football (which at the time, largely resembled what is currently called rugby[29]). Though invited, Harvard chose not to attend. While no formal organization or conference was established, the results of this meeting governed athletic events between these schools well into the twentieth century.[30][31]" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League )

Rutgers' status as a public univ shouldn't be relevant to the question: Rutgers only became a public institution after two acts of NJ legislation in 1945 and 1956, but the talk of "ivy" schools began in the 1930s and 1940s, and Rutgers seems to have been included in this. I don't think there was any top-down decision of who to include, nor was there some mythical "invitation" extended to certain colleges rather than others... It was an organized effort by many institutional leaders, and somewhere along the way Rutgers fell by the wayside... (Given the history of the editorial run in 7 of the schools' daily newspapers on December 3, 1936, Brown was on the outside looking in; and given Cornell's young-buck status and geographical location, Rutgers would have been a better fit... But history went differently.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.16 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting Article I just found

http://www.fanblogs.com/rutgers/006540.php

Amishjedi 23:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Amishjedi

[edit] Odd statement

The article says "Rutgers is also home to Melville scholar H. Bruce Franklin, whose academic tenure was revoked by Stanford University for actions that were arguably the exercise of his First Amendment right to free speech." Could that be phrased in a more explanatory way? It's not clear why his dismissal is relevant to his job at Rutgers (did Rutgers hire him because of the way he was fired or dismissed?), or what the First Amendment has to do with Stanford at all.

--Dartmothian (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)