Talk:Sid Richardson College

Old comment
2/18/04 Please edit, improve, add detail if you've got it.

-Ajeannie SRC '96

7 stories and Charter
"only 7 floors high (in accordance with the Rice charter)"
 * Is this really true? Isn't Brown College eight stories?
 * The 7 floors thing is a myth, and yes, Brown is eight stories high.
 * Sid is about fourteen stories tall, each floor has a half-flight of stairs leading to an upper level and a lower level. It's an architectural curiosity, nothing more, but a popular myth until people realize that Brown is eight stories tall. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor things
...not being one for formal editing of Wikipedia, here are some notes:

Motto: Mors de super (death from above) see "Apocalypse Now" Color: Black Song: "Back in Black" AC/DC

...would like a note on the lottery system for rooms ...is there a suicide count for Sid? ...due to the nature of the building's structure, members must all pass through the lobby, making for a more cohesive and unified group dynamic. In the early 90's, the TV area provided a nexus for group bonding in "21 Jump Street" and "Simpsons" viewings (William Martin's son was a writer for the show at this time)

Traditions section
I trimmed this a bit. Is this still worthy of overall inclusion? TIA --Tom (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, though additional citations would be nice. Stop just removing it. Rejun (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you post them here as you find them? --Tom (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Alumnus and citation
The citation given for Steve Jackson makes no mention of Sid Richardson College. The citation works fine for the Rice University article, but not this one. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also not a RS by any strech. --Tom (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagging
I'm just tagging for now. But good god. That picture? These folks are taking myspace to a whole other level here. Everything below "traditions" is junk. I propose trimming it down to the lede and the history and founding section. All that non-notable trivia/ephemera about the "wrawking parteezzee" they throw? Dump it.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do I have a feeling that that picture is of the meatpupets in here :). Anyways, good call. --Tom (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For their sake I hope you're wrong. But that's probably not the way to bet. Dude! LOL! Bali ultimate (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you guys have looked at the pages of the residential colleges of other American universities [Harvard, Yale, UCSC, UCSD], but the standards that you're insisting on for this page are significantly higher than the ones by which those other pages are written. Consistency in enforcement would be pretty helpful. Also, please stop with the ad hominem, it's not appreciated. Senor D (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the following WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I direct you to try reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS yourself, specifically "The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'" Jgr2 (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We haven't gotten to those pages yet :) Seriously, comparing pages around here usually isn't worth much and isn't really a valid argument, even if its true. Also I agree about the comments. I struck my comment about the photo, since that wasn't helpful. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source
Is a RS? --Tom (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a directory built by web crawlers and has an anyone can edit function. I know i'm there with some bad info about me (don't care). I think the SPA's latest claim is that it's the guys website (i.e. a new citation). I'd let that stand for now, i guess. A minor point.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Opps. He wrote "primary souce" but it ain't even that. Still linkedin. Nope, not RS.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it. --Tom (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd consider that a primary source, and hence valid for establishing where he lived at Rice, unless it's disputed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anybody edit that info? --Tom (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It's not "built by web crawlers," either - I suggest actually reading it before dismissing it out of hand. Jgr2 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While it's not impossible to do a LinkedIn page for someone else, it's fairly improbable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having emailed the man himself, Steve Jackson confirms that it is, in fact, his LinkedIn profile. Senor D (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Beer Bike?
The rest of traditions is debatable (at least until some sources are found), but Beer Bike had citations establishing the DQ tradition. Putting that back, accordingly. The "except..." bit removed until reliability of that big stats page is established, or an alternative found. 128.42.155.65 (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I could possibly live with that. Other input? --Tom (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT. Verifiability is a minimum threshold for inclusion (and campus newspapers are not generally considered RS, particularly for internal college fun and games -- the college newspaper i worked on sure wasn't) but not sufficient. Rice University is in fact a well known american school, and i suspect there are things of encyclopedic value to be said about it if research is done. But "my pals drank beer and cycled naked (or whatever) across campus and got into the school newspaper, and there's a citation and everything, and therefore it should be mentioned in this article" is not very persuasive. No, lets not include this.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are 68 years of records on beer bike available.
 * And my family has over 100 years of geneological records... should we put it all on wikipedia? This is not the stuff of general encyclopedias (unless some wider notability can be established for it).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If your family was a major event at a well known university it might merit mentioning them and some notable members.128.42.155.65 (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there indepdendent, non-trivial coverage that would establish the excessive weight now being placed on the "Beer Bike's" impace on Sid Richardson college? So far, i see no such sourcing IP.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My off-the-cuff opinion is that this is probably notable for the purposes of the main Rice article, but not for the individual colleges.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's a brief paragraph in the main rice article mentioning that it's a spring time event. A lot of main articles on colleges mention that kind of stuff briefly, and seems appropriate. This topic has no particular connection to this residential college at all (beyond the Rice connection).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Will Rice and Sid Richardson have particular beer bike traditions; Will Rice for the sweeps (admittedly, not an expert with regards to that), Sid for the 15-year DQ run. There shouldn't be a full "THIS IS BEER BIKE" blurb on either college page, but a short discussion on the pecularities is fitting. 128.42.155.65 (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone doing this to Harvard? They have college pages with zero citations yet Rice colleges are being forced to cite everything on their page. That doesn't seem fair at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.59.228 (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

College Masters list
I don't think the list of past masters is appropriate here, yet it has not been a bone of contention. Odd, considering the zeal with which references and content were being deleted earlier. In any case, I propose that the list be deleted and possibly moved to the College's own website. Barring any objections, I'll do so soon. Jgr2 (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is historical information regarding the college. Why should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.59.228 (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I could agree with condensing it a bit, presentation wise, as it takes up a large part of the article and conveys little. Outright deleting it doesn't make sense, as it is one of the things that differentiates each college. Rejun (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thoroughly uncencyclopedic and beyond any due weight. We are not an amateur historical society here. Agree that lists should go (if it's still there as i write this).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to expand on that? I wouldn't say it follows obviously.  If this were a list of resident-associates, or non-notable affiliated members of the community, or likewise I'd agree; but masters seem important enough to at least record.  As stated above, I do think a reformatting is probably needed. Rejun (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I hate to say it, I find myself agreeing with Bali here. It's not useful or interesting. Jgr2 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Traditions
I'm not going to get into an edit war over this. Here's what been deleted, what, four times now by ThreeafterThree?

In addition to providing basic residential and social services to its residents, Richardson College is rich with traditions, which have included some notorious pranks. For example, Richardson students have made use of the six communal balconies, located above the main entrance of the college, to "douche" unsuspecting visitors with buckets of water as they climb the steps to the double doors. While such "free-flowing water" is the only sanctioned projectile, rogue students have also flung flour tortillas and, in one particularly infamous situation, a couch, variously rumored to be aflame, thrown by Chicago White Sox reliever and former Lovett College resident Matt Anderson.

I'm beginning to question the good faith of this editor. This is a unique trait of Sid Richardson College, and I've yet to see a justified explanation for why it's being removed post-improvement. Jgr2 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Failing any input or reasoned explanation, it's going to go back up soon. Jgr2 (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Expecting some reason for its removal, yet again. Restored accordingly. 128.42.159.202 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, just a reminder for all, please see WP:3RR. Please don't get in an edit war and get blocked. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This "material" is non notable. Tom (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N. This section serves as a introduction to more notable and better sourced traditions.  Rather than having DOUCHING, VATORING, and THROWING SHIT OFF THE BALCONY as separate sub-headings anyway.  It makes for a better and more interesting article. Rejun (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That "stuff" is not covered below however. It should be removed unless other sources can be provided that show its notable for the article. Tom (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with tom and this is not established as approaching inclusion, let alone passing.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read the link? I'll summarize: "Notability" applies to articles' existence, not the content of said articles. Content is guided by weight, verifiability, and NPOV. We're not discussing the article itself (that's for the RfC page on the WikiProject Uni; we're discussing a paragraph within it. If you can show that this information violates any of these guidelines, present your views.  Otherwise, what you're doing now is attempting Proof by assertion. Bear in mind we are endeavoring here to bring this article up to the standards of Wikipedia as a whole, i.e. the official guidelines, and if possible beyond them.  It's been established in the RfC that the Rice Thresher is acceptable for providing facts, but not for providing notability to the article as a whole. Jgr2 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not been established at all. I asserted it. Don't selectively choose parts of the proposal you like and call them consensus and then choose other parts of the same proposal to rail against. There is nothing stopping anyone from nominating these articles for AfD for a continued lack of any assertion of notability in a significant fashion by reliable, independent, secondary sources. Excepting the architectural book and the dubious LinkedIn citation, every single one of the existing citations resolves to a  domain. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the notability of the article I'm arguing. See the RfC! I find myself agreeing more and more that the colleges might not deserve their own articles. It's the inclusion of this paragraph that's being argued, and if this article gets incorporated into the list as a whole, this part deserves to be in there as it is unique to Sid Richardson College. Also, the LinkedIn article is genuine; email Steve Jackson yourself and ask him. Jgr2 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) And that paragrapgh is garbage. "douching" students, you going to find a RS for that nonsense? Some bonehead threw a couch out a window or balcony or whatever? Was it on fire?? Enquiring minds want to know? Go to Wikipedia to find out! Hurry Hurry! Its bad enough that we have the two "traditions" listed, whatever, pick your battles, but that crap paragraph about douching is lame. Did somebody say they wanted to improve this "article"??Tom (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd direct you to WP:CIVIL. The paragraph is interesting, cited with a (still unresolved policy-wise, but it's definitely reliable, as there's even an audio recording of the interview in question: ) source not published by Richardson College, and you still haven't answered my earlier question.  I'll pose it again: Can you show that it does not meet any of the stated guidelines? If so, I'll remove it myself. Jgr2 (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its OR and unsourced, except for mention of non notable ball player mentioning some other guy throw a couch out a window. If you want to write something about the couch, great, I am removing the douching part, ok? great, civil enough for you? Awesome! Cheers and thanks!Tom (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverting the trolling. --Tom (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well ok then, now that you've explained in a reasoned and (somewhat) legible manner, you'll get no more protest out of me. Civility (or at least keeping it to sarcasm) and reasonable discussion is all I ask for. Jgr2 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, sounds good. Again, I have no problem if folks want to expand this article, but please add reliable sources and not original research commentary. The best thing going forward might be to make suggestions here and run it by folks first? That why, if there is agreement, we avoid unnecessary reverts back and forth. Anyways, Tom (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The "notorious" and "infamous" flaming couch, sourced to the rice student newspaper, does not belong, I'm in agreement with Tom on that. Kids -- this is going to break down very quickly for you if you keep up with the tag teaming. Why don't you start a Rice U wiki if there isn't one yet -- that will have much lower standards for inclusion and burning couches will be allowed to rain from the skys over there. But here? You both have a clear conflict of interest and are ignoring the need to build consensus on this talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the new edit before you reverted? Your single objection is moot. And see above for the source, it's from the mouth of an eyewitness and is reported as such. Listen for yourself . Stop  assuming that because I'm a Rice student I'm not trying to improve the article. Go edit something that could actually use your apparently singular deletion skills, like Harvard College. Jgr2 (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm frankly disappointed that the renovation of Rice's college's articles is descending into this ridiculous level of arguing. I'm also disappointed that sources that are found by people who intend to improve the article are being disregarded and diminished solely because they were created within the university, or do not come from a "reliable and notable" source. Rice is a top-tier, serious institution, and its college system and student media are equally very serious about their existences and reputation. Focusing on the Sid Richardson article in particular: If many of the editors removing information from the article knew anything about the college, they would know that Sid prides itself on *not* taking things seriously, performing pranks, purposefully forfeiting the beer bike race, etc. You may not think that throwing water at people off the tallest building on campus is an non-noteworthy tradition: the fact is, it doesn't matter. If a flaming couch was notable enough to be referenced by Rice's [prominent on a citywide level] campus paper, then it can be in the article. If it's been properly sourced, and it's a fact that provides insight into the nature of student life at the college, it deserves to be in there. Rice students and sources are the authorities on these articles; there is no point in diminishing them.


 * To conclude: I disagree with original research being included in the article; I hope that within a few weeks, every fact within these college articles will be properly sourced, as it has the potential to be. I completely disagree with the accusations made against this article's sources. The facts are valuable in the context of the entity being described in the article, and if they are properly sourced, then there is no reason to keep deleting them. Finally, if anyone is grinding swords in here, then they are kindly requested to leave the article alone; there are plenty of more "prominent" institutions that have far articles with far worse sourcing that are not suffering from this degree of childishness. Let's try and arrive at a consensus that is fair to all parties involved (source material included)AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am glad the "douching" reference is out. Can we get a citation for some of the pranks being "dangerous". Even if the couch was on fire, that seems pretty tame, but that is original research without a reliable source. Anyways, Tom (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the inherent danger in a couch, flaming or not, being thrown off of the equivalent of a 13.5th story balcony that is directly over the main entrance to the college is fairly self-evident, but if you disagree that too can be worded differently. Jgr2 (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But that is your opinion and also the essence of original research (ie, how safe is couch tossing). What if the area below was taped off and there were folks "directing" this "operation". This "throw" could be then done in a very safe and controlled way. Did this happen that way? Who the f knows since we have one source that covers this in passing and nothing else. Anyways, maybe we should start an article about couch throwing and include this "incident" as a prime example :) --Tom (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who cares if it's safe? Some stupid drunk college kid threw a couch off a balcony (according to a student newspaper), no one was hurt, and this is encyclopedic how exactly? It's garbage. It's trivia. And if doesn't belong.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I would strike the part about being drunk per BLP. Drunkeness is not a prerequiste for couch tossing, but it does make it much funner. I actually prefer piano and soda maching tossing as was done at my fraternity, but I digress :) --Tom (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We had a habit of coming up with funny party themes and then drinking ourselves into oblivion and then this getting covered in the school newspaper. Maybe I should go spinout my fraternity chapter's section and include these anecdotes. Oh wait, Wikipedia's not for things made up one day. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I got up to all kinds of nonesense in college that we thought was "legendary" at the time -- they wrote about us in the school paper, even, a bunch of times! Yet that past, as fun as it was, is as encyclopedically useless as the couch throwing et al.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Should trivia be allowed on Wikipedia?. In this case, I'd say yes; its make the article more interesting and is sourced.  I would NOT support a list of other balcony "incidents" however, one is quite enough.  The citation needed on whether or not a couch thrown from 100+ ft is dangerous (irrespective of its enflamed status) is also ridiculous, and should be removed; its clearly a case of disagreements on this page affecting the actual article in an immature manner.  Rejun (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Still not established as notable to the history of this place via reliable sources independent of the subject. It is in fact trivia of no encyclopedic relevance. And it will have to go soon. I guess the next step is a request for comment and possibly other steps to rein in these special purpose accounts with a clear conflict of interest. Will make the RFC later today.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability cite is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article" (Emphasis mine). Citation above denotes policy on trivia within an article; Trivia is not automatically inappropriate.  Reliability is an open question; not clear cut as you're suggesting. Personal attack.  RFC might be the right way to go with this, given the comments we're seeing here. Rejun (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

!Voting
(outdent) I have removed the couch buisness as trivia. It is mentioned in one source and in passing. It seems that there is no clear consensus for inclusion. I hate to do the vote thing, but just to recap I will start below. Include/Exclude (burning) couch toss?:
 * Exclude as trivial. Tom (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Include. After reading above arguments, I think this should be included.  Especially from Rejun's link, the one about handling trivia; it's interesting, and it relates Richardson College to a baseball player, which seems to fulfill the second part of the connective trivia section.  I'd say include.  Also, sorry for thinking that was vandalism - I didn't read the discussion at first.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.243.172 (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC) — 168.7.243.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Include. I've already made my arguments as to why its permissable trivia. Rejun (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exclude. In my opinion it is too trivial for an encyclopedia. Alanraywiki (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Obvious lack of notability and otherwise trivial and unencyclopedic. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exclude.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Include.Kirlinator (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC) — Kirlinator (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Include. Relevant to the subject matter, there's too much concern over the sources in this particular article. There's bigger fish to fry. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Include per Rejun and AniRaptor2001. Postoak (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Include. I also agree with Rejun and AniRaptor2001 on this one.Mphornet (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd note for the purposes of consensus formation that Rejun, Kirlinator, AniRaptor2001, and Mphornet appear to edit Rice University articles exclusively. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would imagine that this is because Rice is our area of familiarity and interest. I hope that doesn't bring our editing integrity into question. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It might go more to WP:COI. Right now there is not a consensus for inclusion, but lets see. --Tom (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you have four established editors with diverse contribution histories and no COI advocating one thing, and four new editors with a clear focus and possible COI advocating the opposite, which view should prevail? Madcoverboy (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't understand why we're voting, then, if more established editors are going to prevail anyway. Kirlinator (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a bit disingenuous to make this point only once its clear that the vote is not clear cut one way or the other. Rejun (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, don't ask for a vote and then ignore it when it doesn't go your way. You wanted a vote, and it's 6 to 4 in favor of including the material at hand (it'd be 7 to 4 with my vote). Whether or not this signals a clear cut winner, there's no reason you have to bring up a secondary point after the voting is done.  The thing I've noticed from this whole discussion page is that those who make the claim that they are more diverse editors seem to be acting the most immature about this whole issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.249.249 (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a democracy and polling is not a substitute for discussion. You don't get to recruit a couple of your friends on facebook and then run roughshod over Wikipedia policy and guidelines because you think your dorm's traditions are superkewl. This was just a test to see where people stand. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the ad hominem attack. That's certainly constructive. I think, in light of the facts that; a) This was not, as you seem to suggest, one of the editors participating in this discussion's action; and that b) this happened twelve years ago and is still mentioned quite frequently at Rice, an university with a notoriously short institutional memory, indicating that it had a rather large impact on the student culture, it's rather more important than you make it out to be.  If any of your exploits in college were still being talked about twelve years later, Madcoverboy, they might indeed merit a mention here, as two sentences in a page that's visited an average of, what, 8 times a day in the past year? Jgr2 (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Acutally, no - anything that happened at my college dorm or frat last week, last year, or last decade that didn't warrant significant outside news, scholarly, or popular coverage I don't think should be in a Wikipedia article because it probably wasn't that big of a deal. Unlike editors with an obvious conflict of interest, I'm not trying to advance any outside or personal interest over Wikipedia's interests. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Include, for what it's worth. I've stated my reasons already, and I generally agree with Rejun on the whole trivia thing. Jgr2 (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Madcoverboy, I don't intend this as a personal attack, but referring to your most recent comments, you do realize that MIT, "your college", has its own page for "hacks"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.253.70 (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which have received extensive coverage in independent news sources (NYTimes, LA Times, Boston Globe, etc.) as well as being the subject of four books. If you doubt its notability, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Madcoverboy here. That particular comment doesn't even really have anything to do with the point in question, which is the inclusion or exclusion of the couch incident. The hacks article doesn't need deletion, but it could certainly do with a massive amount of editing for OR and trivia.  Jgr2 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Include. Nontrivial within the context of the article. Senor D (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. By my count that's 7 vs 4, Include. It's been nearly three days since the last input.  Unless someone has a new objection I'll put the text and citation in question back sometime in the next couple of days (allowing time for comment).  Rejun (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote where majority wins. Because you have no consensus to reinsert it, it can't be included. Take it to WP:MEDCAB if you're not happy with the lack of consensus on including it. Given contentiousness of passage, WP:3RR protection may be necessary if it is inserted. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not unanimity either. The only argument I've seen for exclusion on these lines is based on the notability requirement for articles.  I'll admit I phrased my prior comment a little poorly though; I don't intend to put the lines back because of the vote directly, but because of lack of reasonable objection and straw-poll support for trivia inclusion. Rejun (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but when you have 7 Rice-affiliated editors asserting one thing and 5 unaffiliated and well-established editors asserting the other, I think you'd give us five the benefit of the doubt that we know our head from our ass on these matters and it's not the first time we've had to make a judgment call like this. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of barnstars on a user's profile does not make their opinion a policy; I would expect it to be an indicator of the quality of their arguments. What I'm looking for is some coherent counter-point to the cited trivia one (reproducing for clarity); not pseudo-appeals to authority.  I also count 4 excludes: Madcoverboy, Tom, Alanraywiki, and Bali ultimate; typo or did I miss someone?  Rejun (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The fifth vote to exclude is shown here by User:SarekOfVulcan. The signature just is not there. Alanraywiki (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that'd explain it; I just skipped over anything not signed or IP signed. Rejun (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Object. Exclude per various non-notability arguments above
 * Is there a policy citation for this? For clarity's sake, there's alot to dig through on this page now. Rejun (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Take the material down and discuss what if anything deserves to go up there. Stop reverting each other's edits or this will be referred to WP:AN3 for page protection. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Harvard College
Why is this not being done to Harvard's college wikis, which have no citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.59.228 (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)