` ** IMHO, both of the above comments seem to be irrelevant to deciding the issue, coming very close to original research.   citation is one I would normally accept- being a Rutgers alumnus, I've been indoctrinated by that dogma.  But dogma isn't necessarily false, as he/she implies (see the uncited ``simply false`` statement).   version sounds plausible, but again, it looks like OR.  How about an NPOV citation?  `