Talk:Wellesley College Senate bus

message: *It would be great if someone could take a picture of the Fuck Truck.Interestingstuffadder 01:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Picture

message: *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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
replies: text: You should vote on the article for deletion page, not here. Catamorphism 21:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how this got here. Oh well! :) Isopropyl 02:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First AfD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Origin

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wellesley