This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Petition against Hinduphobic professor
This is in reference to an edit I made, which was later reverted by ElKevbo. The rationale provided for the revert, i.e. WP:NOTNEWS, is not applicable here as the petition and the subsequent events have been reported by various news sources in India, including The Times of India and TV9 Digital. Indian media reporting about an American university is clearly not reflective of routine coverage. In light of the coverage attracted by this petition, it is evident that it is notable enough to be mentioned in this article. I'll also suggest those with a contrary viewpoint to discuss it out here before reverting the edit. SignificantPBD (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is inappropriate to edit war with other editors to insert new material into an article especially when legitimate objections have been raised and not yet resolved. You do not own this article and do not get to dictate its content.
Exactly what about this Twitter exchange and Internet petition have resulted in long-lasting change at this university? Why must readers know about this in the context of an institution that is over 250 years old? We must summarize the entire history, organization, funding, accomplishments, and challenges of this institution in this article so we must be extremely selective about what we include. We cannot include every news item or recent event so why does this particular recent event merit inclusion? ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have a limit on the number of words in Wikipedia as far as I know. Even if there was a limit, a small section with the most recent controversy that came out of Rutgers wouldn't hurt. This is not a football match lost by Rutgers to ignore, its a statement put out by the university itself with its Chancellor as one of the signatories. What exactly qualifies to go into Rutgers wiki page ? I dont think the cancellation of Lisa Daftari's speech despite her being a Rutgers alumni and Rutgers itself being a public school which must honor the 1st amendment, would go into it. Not only does nobody owns this wiki article, there is also a requirement to keep it neutral. Its not a university pamphlet or an advertising agency to include "extremely selective" accomplishments. I'd say include controversies. You're more than welcome to keep it short. μTalk 01:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we should include notable controversies! But how do we define "notable" in that context? What is important enough to warrant in an encyclopedia article that - as already said above - must summarize the entire history, organization, funding, accomplishments, and challenges of this institution that is over 250 years old? Typically, we ask ourselves questions like "Has this controversy received lasting, widespread coverage in a variety of reliable sources? Has or will it likely result in lasting change at the institution? Is this more than just current news or outrage stirred up by a small group of people?" Right now, I'm not coming up with favorable answers to those kinds of questions. Simply being associated with an official statement from the university does not cross the threshold of being important enough to include in this article. The institution produces lots of statements each year and I hope you can agree that we can't include them all nor should we include them all in this article! ElKevbo (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo:Muon is correct. If you are really agreeing with dedicating a controvery section with multiple controversies then you should also take a note of these controversies related to the university: "ZOA originally criticized Rutgers University for the attack on Marcus, who is the grandson of Holocaust survivors"[1], "The exposure of Magarelli's comments in the classroom comes as Jewish groups have criticized Rutgers University"[2], "FIRE also criticized Rutgers University in New Jersey for withdrawing funding and access to university facilities from a resident chapter of InterVarsity."[3]
I am willing to dedicate a section covering all of these controversies. SignificantPBD (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not agree with the general idea of adding or retaining "controversy" sections in articles, including this one. Segregating those historical events into their own section is often a NPOV problem. It's also usually a disservice to readers to separate those events from the larger context that preceded and followed them. Finally, those sections often become collections of minor, one-off events that had no lasting impact but some editor thought they were important at the time (but never came back later to reevaluate or place into context) or included because they have a grievance against the subject.
We simply cannot and do not include all information that is published even in the most reliable of sources. It's usually best to only try to include controversies that have had or are certain to have significant, long-lasting impact. We cannot and will not include every day-to-day event, complaint, or accusation. ElKevbo (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
increase article protection from semi-protection to extended confirmed protection due to persistent efforts to add opinionated sections that semi-protection has failed to prevent Ronak19 (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kai445, you recently reverted an edit I made to the short description of this article, without providing an explanation. I shortened the s/d to what I considered to be its bare essentials, as an s/d should be. Why did you undo this? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think its important to capture the multi-campus aspect in the description due to how RU is organized, and it seemed like an unnecessary edit. I've gone back and shortened it. -Kai445 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
