Talk:The College of New Jersey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Faculty

First: a 12:1 faculty to student ratio means 12 teachers to every student. Clearly wrong. And if one uses the figures given (324 faculty and 6,000 students) the ratio is closer to 1:18. So I've gotten rid of the error. - Nunh-huh 21:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reworked the article on 25 December 2004 (yeah, nothing better to do on Christmas). I removed a lot of superfluous information, and brought in new stuff that should have been there in the first place. I doubt I'll catch any flak for it. I don't know enough about TCNJ to add a Notable Alumni, Notable Faculty, or other categories. I'll leave that for someone else. —ExplorerCDT 20:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Much of the text of this article is practically taken verbatim from the TCNJ website. Darkcore 20:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greek Organization List

Does this entry really need a listing of every greek organization? It takes up a lot of space and doesn't contribute much valuable information. Jschramm 06:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It really seems out of place when considering many non-greek student groups/organizations are of greater visibility than some of the greeks mentioned here. N Vale 05:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this warrants a new article 'Greek Life at TCNJ.' However, maybe a link to the IGC would suffice? Rj3labs 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To be certain, not all of these groups are even officially recognized by the institution. See "unrecognized orgs" at IGC Iggynelix 03:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability/Criteria for inclusion of Neologisms

The "Halo run" neologism seems no more or less verifiable than any of the others. While any of these items would be hard to verify in something like a news source, any TCNJ student can at least verbally verify. Is that good enough for inclusion here? That's where consensus comes into play. If you have an opinion either way, chime in!

While we're at it, perhaps we should take a crack at what is fit for inclusion in this section (if it is even encyclopedic enough to keep around?). I once removed a bit about a guy with a stick. There was a writeup about him in the school newspaper (making it even more verifiable than the others), but every college campus has students that become known for exhibiting some eccentricity, but once they graduate, they quickly fade from memory.

So I would say that students and alumni without any other claim to fame should be avoided. If they have some other claim to fame, they would belong in the "Notable Alumni" section anyway.

Staff members (especially the president) have the potential to stick around for years or even decades so Dr. Gitenstien's nickname will at least have some staying power (although it will probably be forgotten soon after she leaves the TCNJ family). I have some reservations about "Big Larry," but he was there as early as 1997, and based on the IP address of the editor that added him being a TCNJ IP, that probably indicates he is still there in 2006.

Campus/community features are a little better. Metzger Drive is likely not going anywhere, and despite their age it seems unlikely that Travers/Wolfe and the Student Center/Rathskellar are going under the wrecking ball anytime soon.

That's probably more than 2 cents. Keep the change for your next Halo run ;-) Jzerocsk 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a senior at TCNJ and have heard of everything currently listed except the Halo Run. I've been here for four years and honestly have never heard this term. Maybe I'm out of it though? All the others are defintely important tidbits to know about TCNJ. Oh, and Big Larry is still here and still cool as ever. Ags412 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! Have you ever lived on-campus? If not, it might be more of dorm-life phenomenon. I graduated in 2001. At that time, it was a common CA tactic to bribe residents into attending floor meetings by providing ice cream from Halo. This was particularly handy in the freshman dorms, but upperclassmen often made the circuit of Deli Delite and Halo for ice cream and booze.

If you do live on campus, though, maybe the Halo run has become a thing of the past. It's nice to hear that the same fate has not yet befallen Big Larry! Jzerocsk 21:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't lived on campus in two years, but when I did we usually got our pints of ice cream from the C-Store, where they had an ample supply of Ben & Jerry pints.Ags412 00:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I say remove them, neologisms generally, I think, don't seem encyclopedic. On an unrelated note, I apoligize about part of that revert, but I figured that at least a citation should be provided. (I couldn't find any verification, except that the school was located on Clinton Ave.) Freakified 00:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

this post comes from 3 TCNJ upperclassmen who have nothing better to do. all the neologisms are correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.91.113.20 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I also go to TCNJ, and I agree that they're all correct. However, I still don't believe they're encyclopedic. Freakified 03:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I say all these should be removed. In addition to not being encyclopedic, more than half of these are not even "neologisms"; there're a couple euphemisms, and a bunch of jargon/nicknames. Example: "e-mail" is a neologism that arose out of a specific time/place/context and is now in popular usage, "Chef Gene" is some nickname you gave to a cafeteria worker at a college in Ewing NJ. Another hint: "google" (verb) is a neologism, "The Rat" is nickname you gave to the college bar. If you have a friend named Jonathan and you called him "jonny boi", you probably would not (hopefully) deem it a "neologism". Why then would it be appropriate just because it applied to a location/someone slightly more widely known? The only thing I get from reading these "neologism"s is the conclusion that evidently some TCNJ students/graduates like to use words like 'neologism' without knowing what they really mean. :) Tendancer 14:05, 18 October2006 (ET)

Well whether we are adhering to the strict definition of "neologism" or not, I think these "nicknames" or whatever you want to call them belong here. They give a nice idea to an outsider about life on campus and I think are more important than just listing things at every college like, "The majors are ___" and "The frats are ___".Ags412 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

seeing the way the "neologism" list is evolving, I have to strongly disagree. If one really wants to convey the culture and unique idiosyncracies for outsiders, then these non-neologisms should be formatted/integrated into separate paragraphed sections such as "Campus Life" or "Culture", etc. As is, it's just a random list of trivia begging for random TCNJ students and alumni to come by and add whatever "cute" things, however nonsensical, that first comes to mind; currently replete with links to ice cream stores etc. They may be cute, but add little if any encyclopedic value and at this pace, will outgrow the sections about academics (which's only appropriate, in a sense).

I disagree as well; the list offers nothing to the outsider simply wanting general information on TCNJ. Why, for example, would someone need to know that people call the "Travers/Wolfe Dining Hall" "T-Dubs," or that some guy known as "Chef Gene" worked there in the past? I have no idea who this is, so I'm assuming it's probably isolated to upperclassmen. This sort of information has no place in an encyclopedia. It should be removed. Freakified 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The latest edit was really the last straw... Wikipedia's policy explicitly states no original research, which in turn contains this explicit definition for exclusion: "It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source." See WP:NOR. Not to mention, they also violates the #1 rule (see WP:5P) "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...not a trivia collection." I am going to delete all the unsourced nonsense. Tendancer 02:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Neologisms have come back and are getting worse (even by my standards, "24 hour study area" isn't a neologism...it's exactly what it sounds like, even if it is ironically not open 24 hours. I'll yank them again. If you feel they belong, please join the discussion. Jzerocsk 17:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, I feel they belong. At least let them stay until we can see if there are a significant amount of objections.Ags412 18:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely need to be removed. Again, WP:NOR explicitly states these sorts of things do not belong in an encyclopedia: "...any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article...An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:". And then WP:NOR _specifically_ defines one form of unacceptable edit as: "It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source". I do not see how the rules can be any clearer than this. Even if ignoring the original research aspect of these edits, they are trivial and unimportant and fails WP:5P (btw I am an alumni from the late 90s, and I have never heard of 90% of the so-called TCNJ neologisms). Personally I think even having this discussion is already giving more attention than these rather nonsensical edits deserve. Tendancer 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Tendancer 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion in Trivia

Is the part about the chess champion worthy of inclusion? Any thoughts on this? Freakified 03:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of interesting, although it still should be cited. I did a little bit of googling on the name and he does seem to have been a competitve chess player in high school, but I didn't spot anything about a national championship. Not that it's not true, but verifiability is pretty important. Jzerocsk 19:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote no, because there can be many students former and current who are champions in their field in a lot of things, and then we embark on a sloppy slope of deciding whose activities were more inclusion-worthy than the others. For instance, I know a couple of alumni who once placed in the final/won some major regional and national ballroom dancing comps at the adult level; I don't deem that more or less noteworthy than this one individual's winning one _section_ of a national-level chess tournament at the K-12 level (which's different from being "national champion" incidentally). From what I can tell he was the 52nd-rated 17-yr old chess player in 2004, and that year he won his age-specific section of a national tournament called the "National Youth Action Championships". Please don't take this as a "slam"--as someone who had dabbled in chess I find his feat very impressive and he's no doubt very gifted--I just think that nevertheless fell quite short of being encyclopedia-worthy. I'll await other's opinion on this. Tendancer 18:25 16 October 2006 (ET)

I did some further digging. "National Youth Action Championships" was formerly the "All America Cup", one of many national-level chess competitions out there and the winner is not really recognized as a national champion, just the highest finisher of the comp. I asked myself if someone were to phrase it this way under Trivia: "Current student Daniel Karbownik won the k-12 section of the 'National Youth Action Championships' (a chess tournament) in 2004", would it still be encyclopedia-worthy. I think that would be a pretty clear no. Sorry. Tendancer 13:11 17 October 2006 (ET)

I'm inclined to agree. Freakified 15:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, in response to Jzerocsk's comment, yes i was a competitive chess player in high school, and not just on the scholastic level. Perhaps if you did a little more googling, you would have found the National Youth Action Championship that I won. And as for verifiability, if you had ever even looked on the site, you would have seen that i included a link to the crosstable of the NYAC where you would find my name at the top of the list of players. That's if you had ever actually looked.

As for Tendancer, I dont dispute your not wanting to include it on the site. I understand it's a small piece of superfluous trivia that doesn't need to be there. Fine. I don't know if you actually know anything about chess, but there are several different national tournaments. I never claimed to be THE national chess champion. I claimed to be A national champion. These big national tournaments usually have sections k-3,k-6,k-8, and k-12. Since that is the case, players tend to play in their own section, so the k-12 section is really more of a 9-12 section. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that the oldest section in a scholastic tournament is the strongest section because of the players' age and experience. So, the way I see it, I won the strongest section of A tournament that was held at the national level. If that doesn't make me A national champion, then please, tell me what does. Also, in regards to your comment about me being 52nd (highest) rated in 2004 in the country: I'm not sure why you included this, maybe to belittle my accomplishment or to somehow (falsely) prove that I was not A national champion or something? In reality, if you knew anything about chess, you would know that ratings are only numbers. If you had done your homework, you would see that I have beaten plenty of people higher rated than me, as well as lower rated, and lost to both as well. At the time I could have beaten the highest rated 17 year old, or lost to the lowest rated one. It's just a number that is supposed to be a representation (not always accurate) of your strength for purposes of pairings in tournaments. You will also see that I was ranked 4th going into the tournament, and defeated the highest rated player en route to victory. So, again, I don't dispute that the piece of trivia doesn't belong on the website, but I do dispute you making claims and comments about a subject you obviously know nothing about. -Daniel Karbownik

Daniel, I don't think Tendancer or anyone else was trying to belittle your very impressive accomplishments in chess. At one point he even said not to take it as a "slam". And you shouldn't criticize him for sloppy research, because that is the fault of the lack of citation when the piece of trivia was added to this article. If it takes any amount of digging to verify something on this cite, it should have been cited. So don't blame Tendancer, blame the person who put the trivia up initially.

And since I'm writing, I will say I also agree this accomplishment (while incredibly impressive) is not properly placed in this article. I mean at TCNJ, we have a Northeast stand-up Comedy champion, a girl who ate the largest hamburger in Pennsylvania, a 10th Grade Mathetmatics Champion in NJ, etc. Maybe none of these compare to A chess national champion, but my point is there are many small pieces of trivia that don't belong here. My vote is that this piece of trivia also does not belong in the trivia section.Ags412 17:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ags412- I said it once and I'll say it again, if any of you had actually looked at the trivia when it was put up, there was a link right next to it that took u directly to the crosstable of the tournament where you would have seen exactly who i played, what round i played them in, and that I took first place. So I don't know why you people keep saying that there was no proof or no verifiability. There was no digging to be done, just a simple click.

I *did* do some googling (N.B. - Assume Good Faith is an actual Wikipedia guideline.). Your implication that I LIED about trying to double-check your reference (which does NOT clearly indicate that the winner of this tournament may be considered a "national champion") is completely out of order.

That said - Dan said he agrees with the current consensus that this achievement doesn't really fit in this article, so I'm not sure what is served by beating this dead horse - it doesn't change the outcome, right?

Take care! --Jzerocsk 04:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This may be giving more discussion than this trivia is worth but I'll respond to one thing above regarding "sloppy research." As we all know one of WP's main rule is verifiability, so which of my statements above then is not verifiable and factual? This individual was 52nd ranked that year, and he came in first place at a national level comp called the "National Youth Action Championships" where no official source exists defining the winner as a national champion (unlike e.g. the National Scholastic K-12/Collegiate Championships by the USCF). The editor himself states: "[He] claimed (emphasis mine) to be A national champion", and then "the way [he] see it (emphasis mine), [he] won the strongest section of A tournament that was held at the national level. If that doesn't make [him] A national champion, then please, tell [him]what does." The editor basically stated himself whether that makes him a national champion is based on loose interpretation, which in short violates WP:A.

More importantly and regardless, the editor himself stated the event was a "small piece of superfluous trivia". From his last edit he also implies he himself originally inserted the information anonymously: "i <sic> included a link to the crosstable of the NYAC"; with the original text being: "There is currently a student in the 2009 class attending TCNJ who is a former national chess champion. His name is Dxxxxx Kxxxxxxxx. Proof". That then rather clearly breaks the WP:NOT and WP:COI guidelines regarding self-promotion: e.g. "Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article." Tendancer 17:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Introduction

I don't think the first paragraph in this article is accurate. The wide variety of different degree programs at TCNJ each have different requisite core course sequences, not all of which line up with the four four-credit courses per semester paradigm. This also marginalizes the importance of transfer and part-time students in TCNJ course scheduling and program planning. Many, if not most, students do not fit into this description of the program planning element at TCNJ. I propose that we erase this section of the introductory paragraph: "The College of New Jersey has a four credit system in which students take four classes a semester, and maintains a liberal arts curriculum with a combination of core classes and general education." This part should be replaced with a more appropriate and general statement that encompasses the variety of degree programs at TCNJ. Any thoughts? kidnimbus 20:20, 27 January 2007 (ET)

Student Activities Section

I started this section, but it is not complete as is. Someone tried to go at length about the TCNJ activities and partially listed student organizations in this section, but this edit essentially amounted to propaganda justifying CUB events, some poorly-attended, and other activities such as concerts, all of which are irrelevant. I think a list of campus organizations is appropriate, as mentioned in the "Greek Organization List" discussion, but could someone take the time to actually make a complete list without bias? kidnimbus 00:06, 29 January 2007 (ET)

Took the liberty of providing a link to the Campus Activities dept web-site. That might be a start and could eventually be designed to include the Greek Life section. (which i agree with other comments, is really a list of orgs, and not encyclopedic.) perhpas some notable stats would be more helpful. Avg # of student orgs, GPA, programs, etc for sub-groups like Greek, Academic-realted, diversity, etc. Iggynelix 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Does anybody know what happened to the Loser Hall image? the link is defunct, but i can't find the image anymore. Iggynelix 16:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (yes, i have no Valentine this winter-storm day, so i'm geeking)

Lake Sylva... it's Lake Sylva not Lake Sylvia... look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.140.187.119 (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Way too much Original Research

Guys there's waaay too much original research in this article and the quality is suffering. I know everyone's just trying to contribute (and hence won't go ahead and delete/revert massive sections as I'm very tempted to do right now), but please consult WP:NOR before editing. This is an encyclopedia and as such the content need to be come from published works, otherwise even if everyone makes good-faith edits personal opinions/interpretations or worse, bias, are bound to be introduced. An example is "Head Coach Dave Icenhower has developed the team into arguably the best Division III program in the Nation." This breaks WP:NOR as it was uncited, and breaks WP:PEACOCK("best") as well as WP:WEASEL ("arguably"). We need to be careful not to make this sound like a column in the Signal, as being encyclopedic this article should be edited on a very factual basis. Tendancer 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Getting into detail

Can any wikipedian give some advice on how detailed this article should be? I'm and engineer here, and I'm working on an article for the school of engineering. I would love to see this article go more in depth with what's offered on campus and the organization of it. Rj3labs 17:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer is to Be Bold and have at it. If a section goes into too much detail, it can be broken out into its own section. You may also wish to set up a sandbox page for yourself where you can develop major revisions before putting them in the "live" Wikipedia and subjecting them to the whims of everyone else :-) Here is some info on how to do so. Happy editing! Jzerocsk 14:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

I think we need to be a little more selective when choosing who to post as a 'notable alumni.' I was tempted to remove the last few entries but wanted to get feedback from everyone first. Since when does having your own comedy website, or playing for the globe trotters make you important. It's a selective school with a great reputation. I'm sure there are hundreds of alumni who, by these standards, who would qualify for this list. Thoughts?

Playing for the Globetrotters seems fairly notable. How many people have done that? The comedian doesn't seem very notable, though. Jzerocsk 15:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt, usually a guideline already exists :) per WP:BIO

• Athletes:
  • Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis
  • Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).

• Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
  • With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
  • See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.
  • See WP:PORNBIO for guidelines on erotic entertainers

So, the globetrotter guy qualifies as Harlem Globetrotters is a notable fully professional league. Meanwhile, the comedian not only should be removed from this article, I think I would nominate his article for deletion. Cheers Tendancer 21:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the Jay Black (comedian) article for deletion. Anyone with more insights please feel free to participate at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jay_Black_%28comedian%29 Cheers Tendancer 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following from the list of notables. The Wikipedia entry that 'Jonathan Peck' links to is for the futurist, Jonathan Peck and not the TCNJ alumni lawyer mentioned in the article. --Yatta 07:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

* Jonathan Peck (B.A., 1996) President of the Alumni Association, Lawyer, Patton Boggs Attorneys at Law

Tom McCarthy's Wife And Kids?

Seeing as how the relevant quote is included alongside the link in the References section and is also easily found by in the link itself, is it really necessary to also include the same block of text next to his name? None of the other "Notable Alumni" are set up that way... Jzerocsk 14:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops...maybe I was looking at an older revision, but the quote is no longer in the References section. Sorry about that.

However, my opinion is that if the quote needs to be there at all (I don't think it does) it belongs with the reference.

Jzerocsk 14:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the disambiguation link at the top really necessary?

Given the low numbers of Wikipedia users that were alive during the 19th century, I somehow doubt that anyone is going to type "college of new jersey" into Wikipedia expecting to find Princeton university, so I'm removing the link for now. Freakified (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Then let me explain. The College of New Jersey will quite frequently be used, especially when we use text from before 1896 - like much of the 11th edition of the Britannica. It will be linked, often to here, without anyone checking the link. Readers who follow such links should have some indication of where to go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Vidiot?

Are you serious? I don't really like seeing B.S. on pages, so away it goes. twotonedskazn 11:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Motto

TCNJ doesn't have a motto; I just checked this with the PR director, so I'm removing it from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakified (talk • contribs) 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rankings in lead

I recently removed a large paragraph from this article's lead that discussed several rankings of this college but my edit was reverted by an unregistered editor. First, we should only have a brief overview and summary of relevant rankings in the lead if we have anything at all. Second, the paragraph I removed was very poorly written and was so overblown as to be misleading in its effusive praise of this college:

• The paragraph opened with the hollow statement that "TCNJ has earned national recognition as a leading academic institution." Even if it's true, it's not something we need to explicitly say but something we need to lead readers to conclude by providing them with sufficient evidence (which we don't and probably can't for this subject).
• The paragraph continued with "According to U.S. News & World Report’s latest annual rankings, TCNJ found a place near the top of the list in Best Regional Universities category for the northern region of the country." That simply doesn't support the assertion of a "leading academic institution" given how USN&WR slices its data into so many categories that hundreds of institutions can claim to be "near the top of the list" simply because there are so many lists (which in turn sells magazines because colleges promote the rankings).
• "Kiplinger’s ranks TCNJ #1 Best Value Public College in New Jersey that combines outstanding education with economic value" obviously doesn't speak to TCNJ's national reputation.
• The statement that "TCNJ currently is ranked as one of the “Most Competitive” institutions in the nation by Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges is misleading because "most competitive" is one of a handful of selectivity categories used by Barron's, not a ranking.
• Using "Princeton Review" in any capacity is problematic given the incredibly poor reliability of their methodology (which relies on a handful of student opinions).
• The paragraph boasts of the placement of TCNJ's undergraduate business program in Bloomberg Businessweek's rankings but (a) the ranking slipped significantly in 2012 (from 65 to 84) and (b) the college isn't even the highest ranked public college in its state as Rutgers is ranked higher at 73.
• Further evidence that the school doesn't "boast" about its business program ranking: (a) directly after the "boasting" assertion, article links to a separate article about the business program itself, which despite its length fails to provide a specific number indicating the program's rank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.134.39 (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly a place in this article to mention some of these indicators of reputation. But only a brief summary should be in the lead. And any mention, short or long, should be accurate and truthful. The paragraph I removed did not belong in the lead and it stretched the truth considerably to make the college appear in the best possible light. Such writing has no place in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

New photos of TCNJ

I visited recently. Pretty campus. Here are new pictures for use in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Gross violation of WP:Galleries

This article, while very pretty to view, is in gross violation of the Wikipedia policy on galleries (WP:Galleries). Recommend a link to the commons cat replace most of the photos. Famartin (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes the images are a bit too numerous in the gallery, but maybe people can select the eight (or 7 or 6) best ones? Good idea to link to commons cat. If I had to choose, I'd pick the following photos but knowledgeable folks should write the captions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• 
  Leafy-iality. Leafyness. Leaf city. L'ecole est vert.
• 
  Check out not just books, but the library itself.
• 
  Call 911 -- my library card is about to expire.
• 
  Mind if I borrow a chair.
• 
  Go-kart races in 30 minutes, people.
• 
  Mine's the light-gray building. You can't miss it.
• 
  Who named it Green Hall?

TCNJ people

If there are TCNJ people who are notable and can be written about using reliable sources -- faculty, alumni, students, administrators -- then consider posting a request for an article or a revamp on my talk page and I will try to include material in my spare time, following Wikipedia's rules, but at present I will probably be rather busy until March 2014 so no promises.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ranking, sources, questions

People please stop the edit-warring about the ranking stuff. Note: TCNJ websites are not a valid reliable source for this article. Getting rid of promotional junk will make the article stronger, more believable, as well as follow Wikipedia's rules. Ideas: does TCNJ compete regularly with other schools in academic tournaments -- if so which ones? how does TCNJ fare in these competitions? Are there good sources? Please write something here if you know, thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

All colleges have an ethical obligation to present information as objectively as possible. The US News and World Report rankings are clear that TCNJ has a high ranking within its category. According to US News, TCNJ is not the top public institution in the Northeast, but the top public institution in the Northeast in the "Regional Universities" category. There are no sources to back up the stronger claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.66.17 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's leave the citation needed tag on in case other sources may be found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Citations

This article needs citations for many of the claims. For example, the article states: "Only those students who graduate on the top 10% of their high school class are usually admitted, which is the highest percentage in the Northeastern region of incoming freshmen for public institution." but no citation is given. There are only two citations in this section and neither backs up this claim. Similar examples can be given for many of the other claims. The claims may be true, but there need to be citations given for the claims to stay here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerseyresident (talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Citations help Wikipedia improve as an encyclopedia. No citation needed for that 7-word statement. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a disagreement on how to use citations. If one citation covers claims in multiple sentences, then it is fine to have a single citation at the end. Unfortunately, this reason has been recently given to support using a single citation at the end of a paragraph that is unrelated to the claims in the paragraph. In this case, each of the individual claims needs to be supported by a citation. None of the subsequent editors has justified why the single citation given supports the claims. A look at the citation shows that it doesn't. No one is questioning TCNJ's accomplishments, if they are legitimate. However, Wikipedia seeks to be an encyclopedia and its style guide expects to have published sources (outside of TCNJ's webpage) for claims. Jerseyresident (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Citations should be to independent sources that have made the statement. References to Princeton Review, which quotes TCNJ's language, don't meet the independence criteria as it is the same as quoting directly from TCNJ's website, which raises a conflict-of-interest and non-POV concerns. Jerseyresident (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Disagreements and Consensus

There are a number of contributors who recently keep changing the article back to a set text that has POV and factual errors. They have been asked to discuss it in this talk section, but choose not to do it. For example, the name of the U.S. News category is in dispute, but US. News' website http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/ names the category as "Regional Universities." TCNJ is one of the best Regional Universities, but that doesn't change the name of the category. Subsequent contributors keep claiming that the name of the category is "Best Regional Universities" despite the US News link.Jerseyresident (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You clearly have conflict of interest, you ONLY edit the TCNJ page. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC))

People here seem to be edit-warring. Is it fun? There is joy in editing Wikipedia but it comes from detaching yourselves a bit from unimportant details, trying to listen to others, acknowledging that nobody knows everything, and perhaps taking a break from this article for a week or so? You may begin to see these rather inane ranks by Bloomberg and USNews as trite and unimportant after a while, perhaps?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So? He or she has raised pertinent points that should be addressed.

Why are you edit warring to include things like the incorrect phrase "Best Regional Universities" and the unsourced POV claim "TCNJ continuously boasts one of the best undergraduate business program in the nation" ? ElKevbo (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if that is such a BIG DEAL -- sure remove them. My problem is removing citations like Princeton Review and adding sentences that have incorrect grammar. Also User:ElKevbo you seem to have very much a bias, as you gave me a warning for editing warring but not User:Jerseyresident for doing the same. That does not sound a little conflict of interest on your part? (24.157.56.12 (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC))

• This is only a bit of advice, and sure I know anonymous IPs are people too, but sorry to say it, if you signed up for an account other users would see your edits as more constructive and credible. Most users often infer that edits from IP are vandalism and become reactionary about it. Consider signing up for a user account.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Then correct the grammar and stop reinserting incorrect and POV, unsourced claims. ElKevbo (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am correcting the grammar, and putting in the citation. But as you can see, Princeton Review is not good enough for User talk:Jerseyresident's bias. And please, admit it, you have a strong bias as well. (140.239.232.12 (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC))

This sounds reasonable, as per your edits and mine. So can we keep it as such we both can live with? (140.239.232.12 (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC))

I know ElKevbo's work with university articles having crossed paths with him several times in the last few years, and I can attest that his only bias is seeking accurate, well-sourced information. This isn't. Sadly, I don't think Princeton Review is a valuable resource since its methods for its ranking system are little more than a straw poll after collating student survey comments--and lacking real statistical data--it's more anecdotal. If you're going to discuss the worth of programmes or rankings, more reliable sources with better methodologies are called for. Other university articles lacking the POV of boosterism rely on those better sources.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• There is a lot of peacocking and boosterism in the article that needs to be toned down and I can see some of the reason behind Jerseyresident's concerns. Some of these claims of acclaim are directly from TCNJ and should be better sourced when they are toned down. A college isn't its rankings, but this article is too geared toward the rankings. As Rutgers alum, I might be a little biased as I've always seen as TCNJ was always a rather pathetic excuse for school with little relevance outside Ewing, comparable in reputation to a community college stealing valour by borrowing Princeton's old name (there's no mention of that in the article...go figure), and plagued by lame parties that often came to an end before midnight. Take the week off, the world won't end and TCNJ a week from now will still not be the best school in its misnamed category as ranked by a magazine whose only significance is publishing that ridiculous pissing contest of a ranking.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Steve d guitar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Overall page updates

Hoping for some Wiki guidance here. I work for TCNJ and made an effort to update outdated information on this page in the interest of users. I minimized what might be considered promotional language within the additions and added citations in support of information wherever possible. However, my last edits throughout the page triggered some sort of automated filter disallowing them. I'm admittedly a novice Wiki editor, but would appreciate any assistance in identifying issues so the content of this page can at least be made current. Thank you in advance.

2601:14A:C000:A7B0:DD9F:9BB9:1750:BDC2 (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If you work for the subject of this article then you should not be editing it directly. Please make (specific) suggestions and requests here in Talk so other editors can review them and possible implement them. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the timely response, ElKevbo. As of yesterday, my (disallowed) edits were visible in some sort of log from June 9. However, I can't seem to find them today. Apologies; again, I'm relatively new to Wiki editing. I can type them all out here again if needed, but it would certainly be more efficient if that log still exists. The edits pertained to a number of sections that contained old information. 2601:14A:C000:A7B0:DD9F:9BB9:1750:BDC2 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in the article's history or the publicly viewable logs. It's pretty uncommon for administrators to use the tools that completely delete material from an article and its history and they usually leave some indication that they've done that. So you may have to retype them or find where they went; sorry! ElKevbo (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Found it, ElKevbo! Here's a log of my last edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/30166004 2601:14A:C000:A7B0:DD9F:9BB9:1750:BDC2 (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The statue in front of Roscoe West Hall

The caption for the photo entitled "Serpent of Knowledge" formerly provided unsubstantiated information. It noted that the lion in this statue is fighting "the serpent of knowledge." The origins and history of this statue are not well known enough to make that claim. It is true that the statue depicts a lion wrestling a snake, but the symbolism of the characters is not clear (and seems to be lost to history). More information about this statue can be found in various articles published in the school's student newspaper, The Signal. An article on the front page of this issue of The Signal discusses the original donation of the statue. In this issue (on page 11), longtime President of the college Harold Eickhoff addresses various rumors and misinformation about the statue. In short, the story is that this untitled work of art was part of the collection of Robert and Ann Scherr of Newtown, Pa. Very few other details about the statue are known. It does bear a striking resemblance to the 1832 work Lion with a Snake by Antoine-Louis Barye. Much more is known about that lion-and-snake artwork, and in that statue the serpent/snake doesn't represent knowledge.

Photos

The pictures in this article are very nice, but way too numerous and violate MOS:PERTINENCE. There are over 35 images in this article, in comparison, Michigan State University only has 31 images. Maybe putting in a gallery or pulling out the unnecessary images (or both) would help. Also, a lot of the photos appear to be inserted into a table format, which makes it much hard to read the page in full-screen. Lindsey40186 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)