Talk:Two Dickinson Street Co-op

Untitled

Okay, I think I've figured out how to do the 'hang-on' now. Hopefully this is correctly tagged.

This page was instantly deleted. Wikipedia has an entry for every one of the eating clubs at Princeton University Eating clubs. 2D has a 30+ year history at Princeton is at least as notable as those eating clubs. Give it a couple of days so we can add some detail as to why it is significant/notable. The history of 2D plays an important role in Princeton history, especially in light of the significance of the Eating clubs. Ajkessel 14:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)ajkessel

The 2D "Alternative to the Eating Club" at Princeton has a website here: http://www.princeton.edu/~twod/

If the Eating clubs themselves are relevant enough to have a site, then the 2D Alternative should be equally relevant, since it was created in response to the Eating Clubs, and makes clear that Eating Clubs are not the only option at Princeton.

Co-ops at other schools have pages, including the University of Minnesota Students Co-op and the UC Berkeley Hillegass/Parker House and Cloyne Court Hotel. What makes 2D different is that it is an independent dining co-op in university-managed housing.

2D's importance recognized by

Independent Student Union: http://campuscgi.princeton.edu/~isu

Independent Student Guide: http://www.princeton.edu/~isg/index.shtml

Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students: http://www.princeton.edu/odus/living/coops/

The Princeton Alumni Weekly sees 2D as inheriting a 100+ year tradition of eating cooperatives at Princeton: http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_new/PAW03-04/13-0421/features.html

The cooperative model, as an alternative to eating clubs, has historical precedent at Princeton. In a May 1903 issue of PAW, a campus news item noted that 'a cooperative club has been tried on a small scale this year in Princeton, among members of the junior and senior classes.' The 50 members each paid $4.50 a week for meals, but the group broke up when members began to suspect that the managers were skimming profits for themselves. A century later, Brown and Two Dickinson charge $600 and $500 per semester, respectively, and the members have checks and balances on spending.

"The Student Guide to Princeton," a publication given to all freshmen and available online: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/sg/chap5.shtml

Princeton University's official "Orange Key Virtual Tour": http://www.princeton.edu/~oktour/virtualtour/Info13-UClassDining.htm

"Princeton Environment Reform Committee's Environmental Audit of Princeton University" explicitly considers 2D's environmental effects within the University: http://www.princeton.edu/~perc/Percchap4.htm

---

As an alumna of Princeton and 2D, I want to add that 2D is indispensable to an understanding of the sociology of Princeton University, arguably the best university with the best undergraduate education in the world. I'm not entirely sure what Wikipedia's criteria for irrelevance are, but 2D seems very important to me!

I think somebody is just being spiteful, as in, "Ha ha, let's mess with the vegetarians." I'd like to hear from the user who suggested deletion. To my mind, there's no question that 2D serves a vital function at Princeton University, as both an alternative to the eating clubs and as a thriving community in its own right. It may not be a very popular option, but everyone recently attending Princeton knows of it. It is a Princeton icon, and a very recognizable subculture on campus. Aaron.michels 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Also - why does the article no longer exist? I thought we had 5 days. I've written to the responsible adminsitrators. Below are the links that were at the bottom of the deleted page. I had added a few, and simultaneously the article was deleted, I wasn't sure if the links were saved anywhere... Aaron.michels 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

I, er, got a little carried away with cleaning up. I removed one link, though, because it didn't seem to add anything:

http://nasco.coop/guide/NewJersey.html

Well, I hope you can make something of the article, and that it doesn't get deleted. 2D looks like an interesting place to eat! :) -- Tim 22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted a redundant reference -- two footnotes to the same source in the same paragraph is excessive. Any reference to the Boston Community Cooperatives Newsletter violates strictures on using self-published material: it is only allowable when discussing the sponsor (person or organization). This rule is necessary to prevent "bootstrapping" -- the use of two non-notable organizations' newsletters to establish notability for each other. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for your help cleaning up. Just so I understand, Robert A West, the remaining link (to the BCC newsletter) violates policy? I understand that the link shouldn't be used to establish notability; but what about just as a "primary source" for the information being sourced? As an alternative, BCC etc. has been featured on network TV news, but there is no hyperlinkable reference to that. Would you recommend adding a citation to the TV news even if it can't be "followed"?Ajkessel | Talk 00:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You might also read WP:ATT, which is a new formulation of the same idea. There are sections on self-published sources. One way to explain it is to imagine that the source says something negative about the topic person or organization. Would we trust the source enough to use the information? If not, we probably shouldn't be using the source at all.

Every organization has its website or house organ, which is not necessarily going to be a good indication of what actually happened. If we are writing about Princeton University, or a subdivision thereof (such as 2D), then it is appropriate and often necessary to use the organization's website as a source for non-controversial details. Even there, we need to be careful. The AARP and claim a lot of member support for its political agendaa, whereas most members join for the discounts. Same with the NRA, which has a lot of members who signed up for its excellent gun safety courses.

What we don't do is accept claims (positive or negative) about other organizations. Now, the BCC is a marginal case, because there is a close enough tie to make an argument for inclusion. This is all a matter of judgment, but I wouldn't use the BCC newsletter for a claim about a scandal at 2D. I hope this clarifies. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm still a bit confused. I understand that a self-published source doesn't make sense (1) for anything that could potentially be controversial or (2) for anything that might represent a "viewpoint" rather than facts. Here, I cite the BCC newsletter for the propositions (1) that it was founded by former 2D members and (2) that it is a 501(c)(3) organization that follows a particular model of cooperatively-owned housing. I don't see either proposition as possibly controversial or opinion-based. I suppose I could cite public corporate records for the 501(c)(3) status and maybe find some press articles on the other points, but the newsletter condenses and presents the information succintly. It almost seems to put too much weight on non-controversial statements to seek out other sources, but maybe I'm missing the point.Ajkessel | Talk 01:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources tend to exaggerate the importance of the doings of their publishers. Did founding BCC change 2D in some way? Is BCC significant enough already to really deserve a mention? Relying on the self-published material for that sort of determination is poor scholarship. Since Wikipedia does not publish original research, we should find a reliable source independent of 2D and BCC to make that determination. That is why policy deprecates self-published sources. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2005/05/princeton-25th-reunion.html holds possibly the only image of 2D on the internet. I have sent an email asking permission to use the image under a free licence or in the public domain. -- Tim 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, he's agreed to the GFDL. :) Hopefully that should get uploaded to the Commons sometime soon. -- Tim 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There is another image here, but no indication of authorship and the quality is worse than the blogspot one. I may have an old photo somewhere, I will try to dig it up.Ajkessel | Talk 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Activism Section

2Ders were also prominent among the Frist Filibuster-ers...

http://filibusterfrist.com/statements.shtml That's a co-op alum with the mike, and another member painted the sign... I can't find a website to back me up on that, though.

Error in history

The history section suggests that 2 Dickinson St. was formed partly in response to the sit-in at Nassau Hall in spring 1978. This is incorrect, because the sit-in (April 14) was actually an anti-apartheid protest. I propose striking that clause. Also, about the same time (maybe in 76-77), Terrace Club reopened as a non-selective club that was at the time quite politically active.Academic38 (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)