Talk:Rowan University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup needed

Generally speaking, this page needs a lot of work. A good start would be increased vigilence against ego edits, vapid celebrity mentions, and other fluff that regularly make their way into this article. The insipid Omarosa incident I just removed is a case in point; in the school's illustrious history there have been hundreds of more significant events than some kid throwing water balloons at a very minor, fleeting celebrity. The article is crying out for a Rowan grad, professor, or other expert to take watch, make more sensible content decisions (three paragraphs on its historic party culture and none on the world-class Engineering school?), and generally make the article more worthy of Rowan. Any takers? 71.125.152.107 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well as a graduate of GSC/Rowan, I can tell you that the social climate was a huge part of the college's overall image reputation at the time. It was classified as a party school by every guidance counselor in the state during the 1980s and even had full page Budweiser ads in the Whit around the time of Spring Weekend. There may be some who wish to sweep this well-known part of the school's history under the proverbial carpet, but that is a slippery slope that cries of censorship and revisionism, especially since the current President has made strides (and succeeded mind you) to change the reputation of GSC/Rowan from "It's there, it's cheap, and you're never too stupid" to what it is today. How can you report on where you are or where you are going, unless you are honest about where you have been? The transformation of GSC/Rowan is a remarkable one, but you cannot deny the past in the process. That is not to say it should be the primary focus of the article, but it should be there. I agree with you that there should be some expert guidance, especially regarding the engineering program, as well as other highly touted programs such as their business school to be more informative and expansive. One final note on notable alumni/historical events. This is probably the one section with the highest amount of contention. It is difficult to keep this into perspective and needs regular editing to ensure that vandalism is prevented as well as the inclusion of obscure and insipid entries. One thing I'd like to get an opinion on has to do with a notable event but not using the typical definition. I don't think many people know or remember that a GSC/Rowan alumni won a Student Emmy Award in 1990 for the documentary "What Jeannie Didn't Know" about the coed from Lehigh University who was brutally murdered there. The student and his team were able to get exclusive interviews from Jeanne's parents, something 20/20, 60 Minutes, or any other news program failed to accomplish. The end result of the documentary was that Jeanne's parents formed an organization dedicated to increasing awareness of security issues at universities. It culminated in the Jeanne Clery Act, which was signed by George H.W. Bush in 1990, which worked to improve security on college campuses all across the country. That is something very notable and I feel should be mentioned as it had far-reaching implications and came out of a highly touted and respected Communications program. It may not be the only award-winning product to come from a student or group of students, but it is notable and worthy of inclusion. Staypuft92 20:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a to-do because there is much to change. A lot of the page needs to be rearranged. Peppage^blather 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"ABC secret society"

The edits are vandalism, pure and simple. The article that you're referencing has nothing to do with 'a secret organization'. I'd suggest you leave your game out of the article.  RasputinAXP  20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Farrell's murder

In my opinion Farrell's murder should not be included in this article. Wiki should not crimes committed on campuses unless there is something special about the university that made the crime happen. I see that Verbal has also removed the disputed section. Steel2009 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Major edits should only be undertaken once consensus has been reached, and so far here this is the first you've deigned to discuss it. As I've mentioned when reverting your edits, the murders are certainly important because of their rarity; it's only the second on-campus murder in the University's history, and was covered by both print and television outlets in New York City, New Jersey and Philadelphia. His murder remains unsolved, and has been featured multiple times on America's Most Wanted (see here for specific airdates). Your removal of the section relating to Donald Farrell when the Cindy Nannay murder-suicide and Lynn Darren's off-campus death were left alone simply proves the arbitrary nature of your undiscussed edits.  RasputinAXP  00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an unfortunate fact that many murders, rapes, shootings etc happen on university campuses. Only very significant ones, that have their own articles, and are clearly and significantly linked to the university, should be summarised on the main university page - such as the Virginia Tech murders. Verbal chat 08:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Except when a murder on campus is a rarity, they are significant; Rowan is a suburban (some would say rural) campus, where exactly two murders have taken place, and both are mentioned in the article. Do you have a guideline for its removal from the article, or is this just your point of view that you're trying to get across? It seems you're willfully ignoring the other murder mentioned in the article, and worse, promoting Wikicruft by suggesting that they need to have their own articles. You use the Virginia Tech murders as a red herring. Saying that all incidents of campus violence cannot be mentioned in articles about the institution unless they are of the size or scale of the Virginia Tech massacre is disingenuous at best, and disgusting at the worst.  RasputinAXP  13:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to get consensus for your additions, and insulting editors isn't the way to go about it. Please bring references and arguments supported by policy to support your additions, and then await input from others. Feel free to ask for more input from a relevant project or noticeboard. Verbal chat 13:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the order-of-operations, here: The information was in the article, and Steel2009 chose to remove it. I reverted it as vandalism, seeing as how it is a properly sourced part of a major event in the history of the university, and somehow you got involved on the "removal" side of things. If you take my statements as an insult, that falls on you; your statement that "Only very significant ones...such as the Virginia Tech murders" is telling, and is certainly the idea that I find most contentious. Since the long-standing content was removed from the article, you (and Steel) need to produce policy for its removal.  RasputinAXP  13:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sub-addition: The guidelines for University articles at WP:UNIGUIDE show no such "campus violence inclusion" guidelines.  RasputinAXP  14:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The WP:BURDEN is on those seeking to add to the article, and as you are restoring this text you are taking responsibility for it. I have questioned its relevance to the topic if this page. Please provide references and arguments showing a significant link to the topic of this article, and policy reasoning backing your addition. Please cease edit warring contentious material onto the page. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The references and arguments have been added to the article as well as being mentioned here, on your talk page (which you've helpfully reverted away) and on Steel's Talk page. I have presented you with the WP:UNIGUIDE guidelines as well. If you need a further, more nutshell summarization: the murders on campus both caused shockwave changes to the security procedures on campus, as outlined in the additional sections I provided before you reverted those away as well. I've asked for additional help and oversight from WP:UNI but it appears to me that it may need to go higher if you're seeking to apply personal guidelines to the page.  RasputinAXP  14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the coverage of this event, it seems reasonable that there be a line or two mentioning it in this article. I certainly can't see devoting anything more to it, especially not an entire section with multiple paragraphs. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought it was fine the way it was, with a sentence or two about both incidents. I added more information about the second when challenged by Verbal; if it's decided to return to the status quo ante bellum that's fine by me.  RasputinAXP  15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop reverting each other and arguing about if the information should be there during the discussion. Verbal's bold editing and Rasputin's revert sparked this conversation and that's good. We need to come to a compromise.

This murder was kinda a big deal for a smaller school where the crime rate is fairly low. My opinion is that the information should be included but perhaps it would be best to have it under a "Security/Safety" section where the murder could be listed (trimmed to a few sentences) as the reason for such a huge turnaround on the university's stance on safety. Would this better suit everyone's needs? Removing sourced information that is important to this school seems like a bad idea. --Peppage^tlk 15:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Peppage. You can add a paragraph under "Security/Safety" stating that historically the campus had a low crime rate, but that there were some dramatic, unsolved beating/deaths and that this resulted in added a call box system on campus. Also explain how the campus is policed -- by the local police or by a special campus security patrol. If you want to have many footnotes to the media coverage of the specific deaths, that is fine, but there is no need to say what the EMTs did etc. in the body of the article. So I would keep most or all of the references, but would attach them to about 3 or 4 total sentences. Racepacket (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

While I still think it is a bad idea to include crimes not specific to a university, I can accept what Peppage and Racepacket suggest. If there is a section like "Securit/Safety" that also mentions the crime, I am okay with it. The original article that I edited had an entire section on this crime, on par with a section on the school of medicine. Generally speaking, if you are to includes all murders that occur on university campuses then you would have dozens of such entries for universities like Harvard, Columbia etc. Obviously a rather untenable situation. Steel2009 (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody has had any further input for a week, I'll add the information back in and edit it down.  RasputinAXP  17:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is not clear whether the Farrell murder took place in the South Jersey Technology Park (the section in which it is described). It is also not clear whether there is anything about the South Jersey Technology Park that makes that murder particular to it, for example if there are ongoing security concerns there. RG (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• The paragraph on the Cindy Nannay murder-suicide (now under University Status) seems even more out of place than the Farrell murder. I agree that there could be a Safety and Security section, perhaps in Student Life, that briefly mentions these incidents in terms of their impact on the school. The particulars of the crimes beyond the names and basic facts relevant to the university should be left out. I have no connection to the university or to any of the people involved; these items jumped out at me as oddities as I read the article. RG (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh. Reopening a discussion that's been dead for two years? It's part of the history section, ordered chronologically. Major events are given 3rd-level subheadings.  RasputinAXP  03:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis of undergraduate status

So in the interest of avoiding further edit warring let's discuss why there seems to be a need for emphasizing "undergraduate science" when there wasn't a need for one before. Sure, Rowan's graduate degrees are mostly in the fields of engineering, education and business but since we're listing every degree program here or really on any other article I've read or edited regarding universities on en-wiki I'm kind of at a loss as to why Laburke's decided to emphasize it all of a sudden. If there's a need to enumerate why the school was granted university status by the state, then by all means, go ahead; I just don't see the point in defining what programs they offer because that's what their website is for.  RasputinAXP  20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems appropriate and useful to describe the program offerings of colleges and universities in broad terms. It tends to get out of hand and become unwelcome when the descriptions become too specific and detailed. Of course, it must still be supported by reliable sources and I don't see any in the contested edits. ElKevbo (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And the overspecification starts when the line "Rowan still does not have graduate programs in any of the natural sciences" is included, and when a science building is referred to as an 'undergraduate' science building. It's needlessly specific.  RasputinAXP  04:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

These specifications are vital indices for the level of an academic institution and Wiki readers should not have to go to external web sites to find them. Wiki is not only for Americans. I have worked and done research in European and American universities for over 30 years. Many Europeans, and I suspect many others around the world, have no idea that many American universities would not have the rank of university in their own countries. American state colleges and European écoles d'hautes études and hochsclulen were undergraduate institutions until the 1990s when all started to offer the rough equivalent of masters degrees (troisiême cycle) and professional doctorates, such as the Ed.D. Many but not all American state colleges then changed their titles to universities, but the European institutions kept their designations.

That is why I believe Wiki articles for all recent universities around the world, but especially in America, should fully disclose their graduate program offerings and describe their facilities for research in the sciences. Delving through samples of Wiki articles for recent US universities, it seems that many are written like recruitment brochures. (Yes, my POV.) Several days ago, I changed my original edits quoted just above by RasputinAXP to take out language that reflected this POV and included only the facts, taken from Rowan's web site. It took me quite some time to go through the whole site to make sure the Ed.D. in one program is the only doctorate offered. Saving people time searching elsewhere for this vital index is one of the major points for having Wiki. I hope that there will be a campaign in Wiki to include this vital information on masters and types of doctoral programs and on the level of research in new science buildings and facilities. As I state in my own talk, I am a professor of Chemistry on the Rutgers-Camden campus of Rutgers University, which is nearby Rowan. I have had contact with Chemistry professors at Rowan for over 30 years and I have much respect for their devotion to their students and to the development of their institution. Having said all this, I will check to see if the graduate program offerings at Rutgers-Camden are adequately described in Wiki, especially since there are proposals to merge the two institutions... and BTW, I live near Glassboro Road.Laburke (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd like a Wikiproject wide movement to start, without discussion, and you started it yourself on this page. I'm not going to get into the debate on how many American "universities" aren't really universities (though I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it's far too long a debate to have). The simple fact of the matter is that Rowan didn't simply change its name, it met criteria set by the New Jersey State Division of Higher Education. One could say that the criteria have been relaxed since then, but again, that's a different fish to fry. If you want to start a section on what degrees are offered (and that list is going to run overlong in many, many articles), bring it up at WP:UNI and have those editors hash it out and see if it'd be feasible. I'm sure you could see where I'd think your decision to start with Rowan would be a tad fishy given the vitriol we've had hurled at us for the last several weeks. That said, I'd suggest you go ahead and review Rutgers-Camden as to whether it better fits your guidelines and would perhaps be a better place for you to start.  RasputinAXP  21:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds awful close to original research. Have you looked into the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education? Some of those may be helpful or informative for you. And it certainly wouldn't be inappropriate to include one or more of them in articles. ElKevbo (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Both of you have completely missed the point: Wiki is international. Not only is wiki-en for anglophones but it serves as an international vehicle for information distribution. If you put this to a vote then you will see that the majority will vote that it is not needed because they don't know how chaotic the naming is in the US. Most of my foreign colleagues were surprised to find out that in the US the designation of university does not necessarily mean that the institution must give academic doctorates (PhD and DSc). In the US the meaning of the name university varies amongst the 50 states and the US territories. Therefore, the rest of the world, anglophone or not, needs to know exactly which programs a US "university" offers. So, I will continue to expand the wiki articles on the new universities and "branch campuses" in NJ to include the graduate degree programs that they offer and to include whether the doctorates that they offer are academic or professional. Since the natural sciences are an important index for the level of an academic institution, I will also make sure that the wiki articles describe the level of the degrees and the research capabilities at these institutions. I started nearest to my home near Glassboro Road, I had already verified that the Rutgers-Camden needed only minor edits, and I will work my way North and East. Since I come from NYC and know many of the institutions and faculty there, I will cross the North River (Hudson River) and continue on. Then in parallel I will contribute to sites in my other home Belgium. Some of their new universities e.g. University of Mons do not fully describe their graduate programs on the English site. So I will translate their French sites where they do give a full listing. The new Flemish Hasselt University doesn't give a description of their "Faculties" (Groups of departments, i.e. sciences, medicine, human sciences, etc.). So I'll translate from their Dutch language site. If you really want to see how Rowan would be classed in Europe, take a look at Belgian universities then Artesis Hogeschool Antwerpen and then chose the nederlans language version. You will see thatit does not have university status there but Rugers-Camden does. UK universities also must give the PhD to merit the name. You can see that the small, new University of Kent lists the doctoral programs it gives since it doesn't give the full range. It lists in wiki that it gives the PhD in biological sciences only. This is an indication of the level of the university as an institution. Summing this up, there is a world-wide need for the wikis of US newer "universities" to specify their programs (without making readers wade through the university web site); many foreign universities already list even their PhD programs. I've spent too much time on this... I see that one of the above correspondents describes himself and his interests and competencies, thank you, but the other dares only give the name of a defrocked Russian priest.Laburke (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can cite reliable sources supporting your assertions, it still sounds like original research to me. ElKevbo (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My long response was to explain 1)need: listing of graduate programs and types of degrees = the vital index, 2) not OR: I'm editing by using institution's own web site, 3)conformity to existing en-wiki: most anglophone non-US new universities supply this info in their en-wiki articles, (For the languages I know, I'll help expand existing en-wikis to include missing info on programs and degrees that are listed in the original language wikis, again, not OR) 4)nationalism: using one's own nation's classification (CarnegieMellon) is ok but is not sufficient as a readily available (non-linked) international information source.(The British supply Research Assessment Exercise but also give their existing programs in en-wiki.) Nimium dictum. Hic vero multo tempore oportet esse nobis stare, saltem mihi, quia mihi multum tempore non remanet, in multis modi, tamen suus mihi semper satis tempore ad dicere pax tecum. Laburke (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

First, if you want to add information to this (or any other) encyclopedia article then you have an obligation to establish that the information is important. This should be done by referencing work that other people have done, experts who have said that "this is important." And we should (usually) follow the lead of those experts in how we present the information, too.

Second, you should address this specific part of the OR policy since that seems to be the direction in which you are leaning.

Third, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has nothing to do with Carnegie Mellon University other than sharing a benefactor. It's an internationally respected body of education researchers and policy analysts who have contributed immensely to education within and beyond the U.S. Recommending reliance on the gold standard of postsecondary classification schemes is not nationalism as you have pejoratively labeled it. Moreover, the classification schemes are relatively straight-forward and intuitively named so they're a good model anyway (see point 1 above about relying on the work of experts and point 2 above about not synthesizing primary sources to create new information).

Fourth, I have no idea what you are saying with that Latin (?) phrase nor what you are trying to prove with it. Please communicate in English in en.wikipedia so all editors can understand and communicate with you. ElKevbo (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

He's saying, loosely, he's wasted too much time with us (or has better things to do) and has given up. It's academia to the nth degree. Defrocked priest. Hah.  RasputinAXP  05:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger as part of university history

One or more unregistered editors have removed the subsection of the history section addressing the proposed and rejected merger with Rutgers Camden. Only once has this been explained or justified: "Please focus on Rowan University itself in this page, other discussions should go to a new Wiki page." Although I would be ok with someone trimming or otherwise editing the existing material, I believe it is completely appropriate and relevant to this article. In fact, I can't understand someone believing that a serious legislative proposal to merge this university with another one does not belong in a discussion of this university's recent history. ElKevbo (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you. I already reverted this once. Bannination may have to be committed.  RasputinAXP  20:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He or she has continued to remove the material without discussing it with anyone so I'm not sure what his or her objections are beyond some vague accusations of bias and irrelevance. ElKevbo (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to post this on the WP:UNI board for admin assistance? Could be quicker to get an sprotect from an admin on WP:3RR too.  RasputinAXP  23:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

George Norcross III

It's remarkable to see an article this long about Rowan with no mention of George Norcross III, the head of the Cooper Health System and a very important fundraiser for the Democratic Party in south Jersey. Many commentators have named him as the driving political force behind elevating Rowan from a regional college. JoeBrennan (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

He's the chairman of the board at Cooper Hospital, who are joint participants in Cooper Medical School. That's the extent of his actual association with Rowan. The story that was told at University Assembled when the proposal was made was that the Cooper board called the Rowan board and set up a meeting that took about 5 minutes to describe the school, that Rutgers said "no" to them, and would Rowan like to partner with them? President Farish said they were given about 10 minutes to discuss it among themselves before saying 'yes.'  RasputinAXP  19:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rowan University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061112193538/http://www.philly.com:80/mld/philly/15418323.htm to http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/15418323.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rowan University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091021202845/http://www.njbiz.com:80/article.asp?aID=79275 to http://www.njbiz.com/article.asp?aID=79275

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Expansion thru construction

http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2017/09/development_boom_see_the_change_on_rowan_universit.html#incart_river_home

Studying

I wanaa go to Rowan university to studying there Can you help me ? Abdelrahman shappan (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Abdelrahman shappan Hi, this page is for discussing improvements to this article, not general questions or discussion about the subject. You should contact the university directly or visit its website for information on becoming a student there. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Athletics page creation

As a current Rowan student and employee of the athletics department, I was wondering what the process might be for the creation of a page solely dedicated to Rowan Profs athletics. I have seen some other Division III schools which have pages for their athletics programs, but it appears to be rather hit or miss. However, I feel that this page may be warranted given how large the school is and the constant push within the athletics department to eventually transition to being a Division I program. Please let me know your thoughts. There seems to be enough content for this and I would be willing to work on it, however, I'm still relatively inexperienced with Wikipedia and editing, and as such would like some guidance. Again, let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfeld (talk • contribs) 01:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)