Talk:Wellesley College Senate bus

Picture

• It would be great if someone could take a picture of the Fuck Truck.Interestingstuffadder 01:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I can get a picture. But there's no point, this article's headed for the circular file. Isopropyl 08:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture! I have uploaded two shots of the bus, here and here. Use whichever. Enjoy! Isopropyl 20:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

History

• Does anybody know anything about the history of the fuck truck? How long has it been running? etc? Interestingstuffadder 01:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

First AfD

Cleanup or Delete. I'm a student at MIT and am familiar with this term and its connotations and can attest to its existence and whatnot. However, I feel that the present article is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Perhaps if the title was changed to a less colloquial term, with "Fuck truck" included as an "also known as". The article could use some cleanup. Isopropyl 08:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You should vote on the article for deletion page, not here. Catamorphism 21:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how this got here. Oh well! :) Isopropyl 02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

Referring to the bus as the "fuck truck" is POV (as opposed to describing that the slang term "fuck truck" exists, and how it is used). Let's try to distinguish between talking about the slang term, and talking about the bus(es) it refers to. Catamorphism 21:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Move?

I'm going to move this article to "Senate bus" with redirects at "MIT-Wellesley Senate Bus" and "Fuck truck" unless there are objections. Isopropyl 20:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but the main title should be "Wellesley College Senate Bus", with redirects for "Senate Bus" and the other redirects you suggested. Catamorphism 23:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I object to this move (I aplogize for being out of town when this was first discussed). There was a deletion debate. Moving was considered. In the end, there was no consensus for a deletion or move (aftern lengthy discussion). Interestingstuffadder 01:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin

The article contradicts itself at present re: origin of the term "fuck truck". The term has been in widespread use since at least the early 90s; the Rolling Stone article was in 2002. I had heard that the term as applied to the Senate Bus originated at Harvard; specifically, that a female undergrad at Harvard had dubbed it the Fuck Truck in a newspaper or magazine column. Can anyone confirm? In the meantime, I'm just going to take out the Rolling Stone origin.--Mrnorwood 04:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The article does not claim that the term originated in Rolling Stone, merely that the publication gave it national notoriety. My understanding is that it has been known as the "fuck truck" since its inception. Isopropyl 06:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

I find this portion of the first paragraph as currently written: "Colloquially, students refer to the bus as the fuck truck because it purportedly carries many students from one campus to the other for sexual rendezvous." to be poor because of its use of the weasel word "purportedly". If you can find a source that shows that the bus does carry many students from one campus to the other for sexual rendezvous, then say outright that this is the case. Otherwise, it's just more weaselly vagueness of the kind that we need less of on Wikipedia. Catamorphism 01:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this reasoning is that most of the citations provided in this article do in fact talk about the perception that this shuttle service is used to carry students between campuses for sexual rendezvous. This is why the shuttle is frequently called the "fuck truck" and the "fuck truck" lore is a [or the] main reason why this shuttle service is notable. We simply do not have hard statistics re what percentage of riders are looking for sex. However, in this case at least, what is purportedly true has become much of the story. Thus, in this case, the "purportedly" language is something more than the use of a weasel word. Interestingstuffadder 01:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I remind you that the article title is "Wellesley College Senate Bus", not "Fuck Truck". Thus it's not necessary to justify the use of "fuck truck" in the intro paragraph; it's well-covered in the section "Media coverage". Catamorphism 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)\

The intro paragraph should provide a brief overview of the article. Are you really denying that the shuttle's sexual connotations are sufficiently notable to be warrant a section in the intro paragraph? If this is true, can you really argue with a straight face that everything else that is included in the intro paragraph is more notable than the sexual connotations, which are the main source of this shuttle bus's media attention and thus its claims at notability? Interestingstuffadder 02:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I never thought the bus was notable, and I still don't. Second, as someone who used to ride the bus in question every week, the facts mentioned in the intro paragraph are certainly more relevant than the fact that some students take the bus in order to have sex with somebody. Catamorphism 02:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge you never thought the bus was notable. However, please respond to my argument that the very media sources that are the source for any notability one might attribute to this bus deal with its sexual connotations, not the fact that it might be confused with another bus or the stops it makes. If this were simply a shuttle bus service I imagine we wouldnt be having this conversation right now. Interestingstuffadder 02:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that whatever marginal notability the bus has derives from the fact that it's important to students at a number of notable universities, not from the fact that a number of misogynistic and resentful Harvard and MIT students decided to attach the moniker "fuck truck" to it. Let's also not forget the doctrine of undue weight -- elaborating on the purported sexual purpose of the bus in the first paragraph implies that the bus's primary purpose is to transport students to sexual trysts, when there is no evidence of this. Catamorphism 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But what of the fact that all of the media attention the bus has received has focused on its alleged sexual connotation? I would be completely in favor of a compromise sentence in the intro that acknowledges the falseness of the assumption that the bus's purpose is mainly sexual. Interestingstuffadder 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There's an entire section devoted to that media attention already, and you'd be wise not to push it any further. We can't "acknowledge the falseness of the assumption" either, since there's no proof the assumption is false. I certainly think it's false, but that's my POV. Catamorphism 02:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But what of the role of intro paragraphs in briefly summarizing articles? We could of course acknowledge the opposite point of view -- we have articles quoting it. What are you implying by saying I'd "be rise not to push it any further"? Should I take that as a threat. So far, everything I have done has had a legitimate wikipedia justification. Interestingstuffadder 02:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a threat, it's just meant to suggest that perhaps your time might be spent more fruitfully than on making sure anyone who happens upon this article gets whacked over the head with some unattributed opinions about a shuttle bus at a small college. You've done good work on other articles, so perhaps it would be better for the project if you made more high-quality edits and dropped crusades like this. Catamorphism 02:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your reasoning is that this information is attributable to articles in notable publications. And thank you for the compliment. I appreciate it. Interestingstuffadder 04:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see one notable publication cited in the article that uses "Fuck Truck" (Rolling Stone). The other citations are to publications that are not notable. Catamorphism 15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

the schedule

If the bus is about more than fuck, maybe someone should link to its schedule. that would be useful, esp since i can't find it.

Wellesley

[1] Keep the nickname for the bus since all the students call it that. Why would this fact be censored? Wiki is not a place to whitewash the Colleges and the lifestyles of it's students. If the students make the ancients Romans look prudish so be it, the article must reflect this and more. --Margrave1206 (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Perhaps because there is little evidence here that the term is commonly used, at Wellesley anyway? I find it interesting that the person most adament about keeping the nickname has little or no apparent connection to the MIT/Harvard/Wellesley community. interestingstuffadder has hinted in the past that he has/had Harvard connections, but his web site shows him to be a Florida Atlantic alum. I fully admit I am concerned about the way this reflects on the college, though I can believe that the term is used as a joke or negatively by MIT/Harvard students. I just wish those of you who want this here would admit that you are being provocative simply for the sake of being provocative, not because there in any great merit to including the information. Further, advocating deletion is not the same as censorship. 131.238.31.40 (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it's not so easy to put the obvious into words...--Seba5618 (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this debate has come alive again. I would suggest that we let this sleeping dog lie. The present form of this article, specifically the "fuck truck" reference, isthe product of a long-term back and forth among experienced wikipedia users. We bickered and we nitpicked and we nominated for deletion. But in the end we compromised, and the result of that compromise (a major feature of this compromise solution was naming the article "Wellesley College Senate Bus" instead of "Fuck Truck," which I initially named it, but referencing the colloquial term "Fuck Truck" early in the article) has been in place for over two years now. I am in fact a Harvard alum and can assure you that the term "Fuck Truck" was widely used- I think I was on campus for less than two weeks my freshman year (oh those long-ago days in Holworthy Hall) when I first heard it. The term is very much a part of the local folklore and slang, and decent (albeit imperfect, which can be expected given the nature of the subject matter) sources have been provided to document the use of this term. I think what happened here was a very good example of how a healthy back and forth and a spirit of compromise can produce solid wikipedia articles. I hope that we take pause before resuming the debate over an issue that was resolved years ago in a reasonable way. Interestingstuffadder (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see you respond to my comment above. (Funny you removed the Florida Atlantic Alumni tag on your user page at the same time as you posted. Doesn't suggest a spirit of honest discussion to me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.31.40 (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that I have responded to your comment above, with respect to the "fuck truck" term, on multiple occasions, as have numerous other users as part of a process that resulted in a long-lasting compromise (as mentioned above). As for where I went to college, I did take a couple of graduate courses at FAU years ago (before departing South Florida for professional studies at a university much more of the ilk of my undergraduate alma mater), but I can assure you that I graduated from Harvard College. That said, being that (i) multiple sources, including a national publication, have been provided for the use of this term, (ii) multiple wikipedia users have suggested from personal experience that this term is widely used (I know this in and of itself is not evidence of notability, but it does give credence to the notion that this term is not simlply a media creation, and (iii)the bases of my argument have had little to do with where I went to school and have focused much more on the available secondary sources, per wikipedia guidelines, it is difficult to see how where I went to college has much of anything to do with this debate. As for your concern that this is a "joke" or "negativity" perpetrated by Harvard/MIT students, or that those of us who support the inclusion of this term have done so simply to be provocative, I would respond that the standard of inclusion on wikipedia, as evidenced by reference to secondary sources; a joke made in the spirit of negativity can be as notable as anything else and, as such, has a place on wikipedia if such notability can be demonstrated by reference to secondary sources (as this has been). Also, it is unclear what an editor's desire to be "provocative" has to do with inclusion of material on wikipedia if the provocative material in question satisfies the standards of notability and verifiability. I freely admit that in my days as an active wikipedia editor (which are in the past), much of the material I added was provocative--I think, and others frequently agreed with me--that there is value in adding and advocating on behalf of material that otherwise satisfies wikipedia's standard of inclusion (and is a valid part of human knowledge) but which some editors might shy away from because it is a bit off color. Finally, I would dispute your point that this term is unknown among Wellesley students and graduates--both based on discussions about this article and personal friends who attended Wellesley--but even assuming that this term is used only at Harvard and MIT, if such use at these major, highly notable universities has gotten attention in the national media (which it has), that seems like enough to me. Finally, I would go so far as to say that the national media attention arising from the use of this term is pretty much what makes the senate bus notable in the first place, so if this term is removed I would suggest that we delete this article in its entirety. Interestingstuffadder (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Cuddle Shuttle OR or propaganda? I doubt it's at all "sometimes". Rather, never. I suggest we chuck it. --Mareklug ^talk 08:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the cited articles quotes a single student saying she and her friends started referring to the shuttle as the Cuddle Shuttle after the RS article came out. I agree it should be deleted, though I don't know why you are calling it propaganda. I would also like to see some hard evidence that the "Fuck Truck" term is really all that widespread. Even the RS article really doesn't provide good evidence of ubiquity, and the other sources are weak.

To answer your points with one, in our puritan country, it is exceedingly difficult to come up with normative sources containng published use of "Fuck Truck". That is why I suspected this of propaganda, an attempt at manipulation of reality. That is what propaganda is. As to the idea of finding such a source, I can only tell you from my own experience in 1990, that this was not only widespread, it was either that or "the Senate bus". And nothing but. Similarly, I heard then "Loser Train", but that seemed to be a sporadic indignant reaction at Wellesley to the ubiquitous unquestionably authentic and pervasive "Fuck Truck". It's real folkore, as opposed to: "a single student and her friends started referring to the shuttle..". Deleting the bogus Cuddle Shuttle. --Mareklug ^talk 23:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to be insulting, I know what constitutes propaganda. Throwing out scare words like “propaganda” and “censorship” in Wikipedia discussions is often a sign of a weak argument. For one thing, propaganda assumes that those behind distribution information have an intent to manipulate and, more important, that they hold significant social power. I think it is more likely that a single individual read the Harvard Crimson story and added the term "cuddle shuttle."

Furthermore, you might yourself be accused of attempting to “manipulate reality.” I realize it is difficult to get good sources on folk lore, but you have the burden of proof for arguing the term is pervasive. Why should we believe you as a source for ubiquity rather than others who have made the opposite claim?

On a related note, the Counterpoint links are down - looks like it lost funding from student governments at both schools. 131.238.31.40 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I might be doing all those complicated things, and getting pwned in the process by a cyberstalking former little miss sans manneeeeers... jerks sans frontiers... war without tears.

You should disregard what I say, since I obviously and clumsily corrupted this article, even pushed my own poem... Um, know any others on this subject? It's even worse than all that, as I was a contributing editor of XConnect when it was anthologized!

Um, I don't think you get discussing ideas: I'm rather appalled that having gone out of your way to ferret my CV out, you proceeded to idelibly stain a Wikipedia article talk page with your snooping, then took up making ungainly conjectures. In-vest-he-gate thy correspondent. It's the in-thing in discourse. Oh, how difficult it must have been for you, too. A saying in Polish goes like this: busting through the open doors, in a tank.

Information is no substitute for tact, but apparently, bad taste works for 4 out of 5 dentines.

A li'l head's up: just because personal 'nformation lies (deliberately) out in the open, it ain't yours. It ain't yours.

You apparently did not know, but even in 1990 UNH & Wellesley were a simple if boring drive apart. Some Wellesley women have always yearned to live free or die. :)

Seriously, please contemplate the relative openbookness of our respective wikipersonae. How inequitable.

Que es mas macho? Un pineapple or a knife? A knife, Laurie sez. Because it can take it. Cordially, --Mareklug ^talk 13:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might respond to the ideas. By using the label “propaganda” for the work of others, you are implying that you are yourself free from any partiality on the issue. You imply others may be manipulating reality, you are not and are in a better place to know what is true. In addition, you have placed your personal information in a public place, thus it is not unreasonable to expect that is fair game for checking sources and thus judging impartiality and reliability. (It is not uncommon, for instance, for academics to look up an author’s CV to determine his or her background, as it indicates the school of thought and approach to be expected. I followed a single link from your userpage to your home page and CV. I have, however, removed the specifics above.) You are correct that my personal information is not linked; however, I have not implied impartiality, nor have I claimed that evidence from my experience is relevant. There is no need for verification.

By the way, I was not implying that linking your poem was “sullying” Wikipedia, but that you have an interest in this debate and are not impartial. I agree it a suitable reference to show use of the term, though not enough to show pervasive use. I am not, in fact, saying that you are trying to manipulate reality, but that your claim that others are doing so is no more valid. Perhaps there is a genuine difference of opinion here rather than a conspiracy to propagandize.

So to repeat – why is inserting “cuddle shuttle” propaganda? (We agree it did not belong in the lead and is not notable.) Do the cited articles really show pervasive use? The Counterpoint articles and the existing Crimson article suggest reactions to the use of the term by others, rather than pervasive use at Wellesley. Thus, your edit indicating “pervasive” use of the term is problematic.

Not Sure Where This Belongs

As a late 80s vintage Yalie, and sometime Boston resident, I can assure you that everyone I've ever know, including various Wellesley girlfriends, called it the fuck truck. This article is the very first mention I've ever seen of "senate bus". A lot of the above seems like pseudo political correctness run amok76.24.209.199 (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)