Talk:On the Banks of the Old Raritan

Presence of the Lyrics in article, and Wikisource
User:Night_Gyr has now twice tried to remove the lyrics from the article instead opting to put them in Wikisource. This subject has been previously deleted from wikisource because of some policy minutiae. I have reverted his removal of the lyrics on the following grounds: articles regarding historical songs and college alma maters typically have the lyrics to the song in them (see: The Star-Spangled Banner, Mallard Song (All Souls Coll, Oxford) Hymnus Eucharisticus (Magdalen Coll, Oxford), Far Above Cayuga's Waters (Cornell alma mater), Give My Regards to Davy (Cornell Fight Song), Fight On (USC), Hail, Minnesota (U of Minnesota, and state anthem), Hail, Pennsylvania! (UPenn), Illinois Loyalty (U of Illinois), Notre Dame, Our Mother (UND), Ohio Wesleyan Sweetly and strong (Ohio Wesleyan), OU Chant (U of Oklahoma), also see other historic tunes like Amazing Grace, Herzliebster Jesu, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, Eternal Father, Strong to Save (the U.S. and Royal Navy hymn), The Internationale (socialist anthem), Lacrimosa from the Missa pro defunctis. There is no rationale to remove the lyrics considering the modus operandi is to have lyrics quoted in articles dealing with historic songs. While I will re-include the reference to the article on Wikisource, it is superfluously redundant. The reasoning behind Night Gyr's attack on this article, is that while it looks like a benign edit, he/she has been harassing me accusing me of two-year old instances of copyright violation (case of mistaken identity), and has decided to take his vengeance out on the articles on which I've worked. While that doesn't need to be argued here, such discussions wouldn't be germane or appropriate in this forum. (as Night Gyr should have more important things to do). His continued removal of the lyrics will result in my reverting to the modus operandi of historical song/college alma mater articles, which has been to include the lyrics within the article. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 14:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm not "taking vengeance out" on your articles, I was checking up on articles that you had contributed to because I had noticed problems with edits you had made to other articles and noticed a problem with this one.
 * 2.Lyrics and poetry seems to frown upon the inclusion of the entire words of song or a poem in an article, especially when it makes up the majority of the text and includes no analysis. "do not write an article that consists only of lyrics" -- the articles that include full words generally use them to make sense of the analysis of those words that they present, rather than to just show the words on their own with a bit of context. Apparently consensus is less firm than I thought against inclusion of complete lyrics, although it's not really a settled issue either way.  Wikisource is the safe bet, and makes for a cleaner encyclopedia in my opinion, though.
 * Actually, to update my comment, some of those pages (including this one) are running up against Don't include copies of primary sources. It make specific exception for shorter works, and it seems acceptable to include lyrics when they make a minority of the article.  But, when there's nothing but a stub and a page of lyrics, that goes a little beyond. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3.I searched wikisource, and there's no mention of this song anywhere that would indicate a page about it was ever deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. O.K. I call it a toh-may-to, you call it a toh-mah-to. Your actions of late smack of petty nitpicking in the name of vindictiveness. Besides, I never claimed they were my articles, only that you've been harassive regarding a few of the "articles on which I've worked" for no good reason and out of mistaken identity.
 * 2. It's not a majority of the text, in terms of word count, or content. However, it would be unfair to not state that it has met that hurdle only since my edits (long-overdue) adding in historical information about the song's genesis. I'd actually like to see data showing how many people actually go from the article to Wikisource, first off.  I don't use it at all.  Second, convention should stand especially with historical songs, or noteworthy lyrics or poems (such as the quoting of the poem "Trees" on the Joyce Kilmer article which is pretty much the sole thing he's remembered for.  Heck, when you see an article dealing with The Star-Spangled Banner in most reference books, they have the lyrics. Also, Wikipedia is not paper.  Lastly, characterizing this article as a stub is an insult to the article in its current form.
 * It is not running up against policy at Don't include copies of primary sources, since this qualifies under the short poems/national anthems exemption. I hope you're not a policy fascist who intends to take policy to extremes for which it was never intended.
 * 3. There was a debate about it somewhere (I will find it), but it might have been a general rutgers article.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 16:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

On the Banks of the Old Dundee
"setting them to the tune of a popular melody On the Banks of the Old Dundee." What is this melody? Does anyone know the words to On the Banks of the Old Dundee, or did the song die out long ago? —68.239.163.122 18:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's not On the Banks of Sweet Dundee (second version) that inspired the alma mater? 204.52.215.107 14:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, that song has been found on broadsides dating back as far as 1819-1844.204.52.215.107 14:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Also see this link for links to more info: 204.52.215.107 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Added Parody Lyrics from 1978 Faculty talent show
For anyone doubting the authenticity of these lyrics, I attended both showings of this talent show and wrote them down during the second showing!


 * Lyle F. Padilla, Rutgers College Class of 1978
 * lpadilla@voicenet.com

14:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just sent an email to Lyle Padilla listed above asking if there are anything we can use per WP:V and WP:RS to support the 1978 parody lyrics. I'm not entirely certain of notability, as is discussed down below although I think we should find a way to address parody texts, but the more important issue is complying with verifiability and reliable sources policies. I don't know if the email address is active (nothing bounced back yet), but I will follow-up on this.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the 1978 parody lyrics section for the time being. If we are unable to find a reliable source that can verify the parody, this is unusable as original research. I agree that we should find a way to address how the song has been parodied over the years. Gobōnobō  + c 20:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)   Here's a copy of the removed section:

In the Spring 1978 semester, the Faculty and Staff of Rutgers College held a fund-raising talent show. One of the highlights was a parody of "On the Banks" from the faculty point-of-view, led in song by Dr. Richard P. McCormick, History Professor, University Historian, former Dean of Rutgers College, and father of professor and future University President Dr. Richard L. McCormick.

The Lyrics were:


 * Your fathers sent you to Old Rutgers,
 * And your moms were glad to see you go!
 * For they had quite enough
 * Of your adolescent guff
 * And they felt it was well worth their dough!

(Chorus)
 * To the Banks of the Old Raritan you came
 * Where Old Rutgers ever since has stood
 * Where you found sheer delight
 * Beer and parties every night
 * For we've done the best that we could!


 * So sing your praise to Alma Mater
 * And the RU Screw forever ban!
 * For, as we all should know
 * We find kindness apropos
 * On the banks of the Old Raritan!

(Chorus)

- I emailed Mr. Padilla, and received this back...
 * I'm a member of the Class of '78 and attended that fundraiser talent show which was a few weeks before graduation; in fact, there were two showings and I attended both, going to the second showing specifically to write down the lyrics of the song.
 * I have no idea what would satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for a "proper citation" in terms of how to document what I did. I don't know if "Correspondence with Lyle F. Padilla, Rutgers Class of 1978" will suffice. All I can say is that I was there and Dr. Richard P. McCormick, who was probably the best known name associated with the school next to Henry Rutgers himself,led the singing.
 * Good luck with it.
 * Lyle F. Padilla
 * lpadilla@voicenet.com

no further support for it except a personal vouching.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The flood
I wonder if the author might not have been referring to the flood of 1810 in the song. There is a major Raritan River flood on record in November of that year, according to /. Construction of Old Queens began in the spring of 1809 and classes were first held in Old Queens in 1811, apparently, although the college closed the next year for want of funds. The building was completed in 1825 and the college was reopened. 198.151.130.38 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting possibility. I'll gladly explore whether it could have been that or the biblical flood within the article and will look for more about it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision ideas OCT2013
Just a few things, links, books, sources, for revising and expanding the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * General:


 * 2013 PC Lyrics Revision
 * Kelly Heyboer and Mike Frassinelli "After 140 years, Rutgers nixes 'be a man' and rewrites alma mater with gender-neutral lyrics" in The Star-Ledger (20 September 2013).
 * Mulshine, Paul. "Bowdlerism on the banks of the old Raritan" in The Star-Ledger (24 September 2013).
 * CK: "when the Rutgers Targum took a poll three years ago, 70 percent of them supported leaving the lyrics untouched." (that would be 2010?)
 * Di Ionno, Mark. Rutgers new alma mater not really 'gender neutral' in The Star-Ledger (21 September 2013).


 * I have tried to update the article to include mention of the new lyrics, but have been reverted by OurRutgers, Ruhistory, and 98.221.93.126 without any discussion or edit summaries. The change in lyrics has been documented by the Star-Ledger and the New York Times. I'm in favor of listing the lyrics side by side, but I think other configurations could work as well. Gobōnobō  + c 19:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting them in, I thought the other day about finding a way to approach revising the article to reflect that and more of the history...I adjusted the columns after your edit to put the original lyrics on the left, the new revised lyrics on the right. I hate the new version and hope it is quickly forgotten, but in the interests of fairness and history, the new PC version should be mentioned whether it lasts or not. Thanks for the two additional sources. I think the alpha and beta notes eventually should be incorporated in a new section in the history section about the evolution of the lyrics, and the various attempts to alter or PC-ize the lyrics. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you ColonelHenry. I think you are not alone in disliking the new lyrics, but agree that they should appear in the article regardless. I imagine there are many alums out there who can remember when Rutgers was an all-male school. Still, I hesitate to use the term 'PC', as it is often employed derogatorily or as an epithet. I'd be happy to draft some prose for the history of changes to the song. The page for Rutgers songs now says that Fuller also modified the song 30 years after it was written and that the Glee Club was responsible for some of the additional verses. Perhaps there are some other sources out there that go into more detail on the matter. I also wonder how you feel about the '1978 faculty parody' section. Aside from being unsourced, it seems that a one-time parody, albeit funny, may not be particularly notable. Gobōnobō  + c 21:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - I actually sent an email to Tom Frusciano, the University Archivist, about changes over the years--including the one you mention that Fuller did for Howard McKinney (after looking through a few sources, I think it was about 1916, for the 150th anniversary event, but wanted to make sure first). I'm uncertain about how to tackle the 1978 parody...especially because it's not backed by a WP:RS. While I think notability is a valid question, it would be good to know and address how the song has been parodied over the years (see Trees (poem) for how another Rutgers alumnus' work has been parodied), but we also have to balance whether it really reveals anything by listing parody texts.  All songs are eventually parodied--and thus we come back to notability. I look forward to what you can put together to address the issue, and to working together. In discussing the recent revision, we should mention the reasons why it was revised--alternative family structures, etc., I would use the word phrase "politically correct" in the context of mentioning the criticism of the new text since that specific epithet is being used. The term PC isn't entirely offensive although it's the reactionary thought-terminating cliché, but it is an accurate label for the tenor of the opposition (which positions itself in their own words as anti-PC). Let's see if we can make this article a GA.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - Please do fill me in on what the archivist has to say. The sheet music at this link appears to have been published in 1901 and has some very different verses. The same verses appear in this book, which also has Fuller's account of writing the song on page 161. And finally, the 1916 songbook has the revised lyrics done for McKinney. It seems we should list the original lyrics as well. Do you think we should go with three columns, one for each version? Gobōnobō  + c 19:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - three columns might be a good idea, I'll take a look at those sources later today and get back to you on that. On another note, later on, it is my intention to mention User:OurRutgers and User:Ruhistory to WP:AN/I for potential vandalism and disruptive editing as their only contributions seem to be solely directed toward disrupting this article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not too worried about those accounts - I doubt they'll be back. If they continue to be disruptive, they can be reverted or blocked. I went ahead and added the original version - some racy stuff there, what with the hazing and the slaying of maidens' hearts. I seem to remember reading somewhere who Prex was (an old headmaster I think). This document from the Student Affairs Committee goes into some detail on the revisions and says that the revised version happened in 1914 at the request of William Henry Steele Demarest. Gobōnobō  + c 20:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * & - Hello, glad to see so much discussion on this. At first I wasn't aware that the edits were being discussed, so please don't take my reversions as disruption or vandalism on the article. I actually thought the change citing the "new" version was vandalism, ironically. The reason I continue to revert the page back to its original state is because, despite the headlines of some articles, the lyrics haven't actually changed - yet. While the "new" version has been performed by the Glee Club, and discussed via competing articles, there still remains in effect a Resolution from the University Senate that prohibits the lyrics from being changed. Further, the procedural aspect of changing the alma mater is being debated by university officials (which I expect will continue at this Friday's University Senate meeting). Accordingly, no actual change has officially taken place, which is why it is inappropriate to consider the "proposed new" lyrics as the "new" lyrics. Until the matter is finalized, I would appreciate it if the proposed lyrics are left out, as they may be subject to change and have not yet officially been approved by University Senate, or officially adopted by the student governing body. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding but I do feel that it is important for us not to get ahead of ourselves by prematurely listing a "revised" version before it is complete.--OurRutgers (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2013 (EST)

- I see your point, and thank you for showing up to join the discussion. I was tempted to think this would be a matter of continued vandalism, so I appreciate you wanting to find a solution with Gobonobo, and I, and anyone else who has some thoughts on the matter. Out of curiosity (so we announce our potential conflicts of interest, and to know your vantage point on the matter...are you a Rutgers alumnus/alumna or current student/faculty/staff? I graduated about a decade ago. Gobonobo isn't connected to Rutgers and became interested in this because of the news coverage.). A few points: Would you agree with those 8 points?--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) the article aims to be comprehensive and I'll be the first to admit, the article needs work. In the interests of comprehensiveness, one of the aims should be to expand discussion on the controversy over the lyrics and efforts present and historical at revising them. The article, like any on Wikipedia, gets improved by further research and the inclusion of verifiable, notable, relevant information.
 * (2) I hope the new lyrics fall into obscurity just as quickly as Pat Gardner proposed them (like many of the alumni), however, regardless of whether the new lyrics stick or are quickly discarded and forgotten, it's now a part of the song's history and there are reliable sources verifying that history (newspaper coverage) that needs to be addressed to make the article comprehensive.
 * (3) The fact remains the press reported the change, and the Glee Club with Pat Gardner are the proponents of an attempt to change the lyrics. So, the issue isn't in removing lyrics or not because since there's reliable sources and verified information, removal is out of the question (i.e. we don't whitewash history)--the issue is how best to present the discussion.
 * (4) If the new lyrics stand, they ought to be included on equal standing with the other previous "official" versions of the song. The three column presentation puts them on equal standing.  Until there's a decision to reject the new lyrics, temporarily, I'm happy with the article's three-column status quo going forward as the debate continues in the Rutgers community whether they stay or go.
 * (5) If the new lyrics are ultimately rejected, the article should go back to a two-column format (between the 1873 and 1914 lyrics) on equal footing, and the new lyrics reduced to a mention in a section (to be written) on proposed changes/controversy that covers all the attempts to alter the lyrics.
 * (6) I surmise the best course of action, at present, is to keep the three-column format and wait and see what Rutgers does. I ask, since you seem to be aware of the proceedings, to keep us updated here on this talk page on the University Senate proceedings, the debate and action, if there are some newspaper articles, documents, or other reliable sources that are publically available that we can cite, please let us know so together we can work toward improve the accuracy and coverage of the material.
 * (7) In the meantime, I'll change "revised lyrics (2013)" to "proposed revision (2013)" in the third column, pending the final determination.
 * (8) We'll all work together to improve the article.
 * - Thanks for the detailed response! Of course, disclosing conflicts is always a plus when collaborating. I hold two recent degrees from RU and I'm involved on a few alum committees, which explains why I can shed light both on some of the administrative and student rumblings. I began my editing here because as a recent student I felt that the alma mater was taken out of our hands without any input, and in reading articles on both sides of the debate I felt that things were not as conclusory as they were originally portrayed. While I essentially agree with your points above, I'll respiond to each just to be thorough:


 * (1) I will try to pinpoint the best few articles on each side as citations for the controversy, so the cites are informative but not duplicative. I know there have been some in the Targum as well so I'll try to locate the online versions of those.
 * (2) Agreed. Procedural history is just as important as its substance.
 * (3) Agreed, in part. Some of the student articles I've read show that the students in the Glee Club aren't all actually in favor of this, but they've been told to present a unified front in the interest of preserving the group's image. I'll find a source for that one.
 * (4) Agreed. I like the column view a lot!
 * (5) Agreed.
 * (6) As of today, I know that the University Senate has discussed the issue and they do feel strongly about making sure that proper procedures are followed for revisions to the lyrics. I don't believe the minutes are publicly available yet, so anything I add based on that meeting couldn't have a citation attached. I'll wait until I get something we can reference to add anything related to that meeting.
 * (7) & (8) Thanks, it looks good and you both are much better at the editing process than I am - I've edited other things in the past but with a much simpler formatting scheme! More updates to follow, probably sometime this weekend.--OurRutgers (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - if you want to learn a little more about formatting and Wikipedia's quirks, I'll be glad to teach you what I know. I edit almost every day, so if you ping me, reach out on my talk page, I'll be glad to help. On the other hand, if you want to stick around and work on a few Rutgers projects or other articles, I'll be glad to work with you. (I've been meaning to get to the Rutgers University article, but have spent some time recently on NBTS, and the buildings by Old Queens). I had a feeling the Glee Club wasn't all with one voice--even when I was a member, many thought Gardner was a bloviating fool. Many likely still do. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)