Talk:James Madison University

Fight song lyrics

Lyrics to songs, even to television theme songs, are often copyrighted. If it can be demonstrated that these lyrics are not, then they should be moved to wikisource. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This is always necessary

Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism

Ordering of "Famous Alumni" section

Our "Famous Alumni" section seems to be growing at a decent pace, and we probably should address the question of how we ought to order the list. I see two ways of sorting it: By last name, or by graduation year. Both have equal value, and so I'm wondering what the rest of the group thinks... SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Other famous alumni articles are ordered by last name, which I find logical. Rtcpenguin 05:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Membership of "Famous Alumni" section

Phil Vassar never actually graduated from JMU and never recieved a degree. It should probably be noted that eventhough he attended JMU briefly that he did not complete his requirements and dropped out. [1] I also emailed the Media Relations Office and they replied that there was no record of him ever recieving a degree. If it is kept then I would suggest also adding NASCAR Winston Cup series driver Elliot Sadler to the list. He attended JMU for one year. [2] --Strothra 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Music in Athletics??

Why is the Music subsection in Athletics? Schumin you put it back after someone deleted it... I think it was deleted because it doesn't fit where it is now...

TRL 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, goodness... I see now. I don't know when it got demoted to a third-level heading, but I went ahead and promoted it back to where it belongs. That is a bit odd... SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

MRD

Can we talk about the national awards and recognitions given to the Marching Royal Dukes marching band? Most of them can be found here: http://www.jmu.edu/music/mrd/about.html

I agree. If the brass band has a section, the MRD's should have one too!

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

Schuminweb, please do not censor entries which have been cited. Entering cited articles is not vandalism. In the future, please do the courteous thing and request dispute mediation from other users. Due to concerns over article content I have requested dispute intervention from Wikipedia admins on this issue. Strothra 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

True, the article was cited, but the author was clearly not being serious. Rtcpenguin

Perhaps, but that source is cited. Can you prove with a counter-citation(s) that Dr. Rose has, in fact, not done those things? Since the citation is a published media source the burden of proof falls on the individual(s) who denies the claims of the article. Strothra

Here's my counter-citation for you. See this article. Take the hint. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yo Schuminweb! I see you are going down the nasty route. Please do not forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks thanks bro!!

The comments made on the James Madison University entry are cited in a published source. It is now up to you to go through the proper channels to prove the article itself invalid. I am disappointed that you, as the objecting party, are unwilling to prove the article's accusations to be false but would rather resort to such implied personal attacks. The task is a possible one to undertake but the process of debate over source validity is an important part of Wikipedia. I encourage you to undertake the process. Further, to the above poster, please include your ID next time. Strothra

All I have to say is that if the shoe fits... SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will quote the article you linked to by saying "[t]elling someone 'Don't be a dick' is something of a dick-move in itself..." Anyway, I feel that your recent behavior of attempting to erase entries for "vandalism" when they were not vandalism and of making a personal attack highlight serious concerns regarding your judgement. You seem as if you only pretend to uphold Wikipedia's procedures and rules. I simply asked you to prove the article wrong and you either will not or cannot. If you do then there is very good reason to strike the article citation. If you do not then there's reason for you to complain. Strothra

Mediaton Request

It has been requested that this issue go to mediation. You can find the mediation page here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-23 James Madison University. I will message all users later on. Cameronian 13:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Cameronian has dropped the case. Is there currently any need for mediation? --Fasten 17:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The case was originally brought up by Strothra, whose entire edit history consisted of less than fifty edits, and has made no edits at all since February 28. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who made the request. I had taken it on as a mediator. I had also never dropped the case. It was my intention to carry on as mediator in this case, to tie up before leaving Wikipedia completely. However it seems YOU think you own the place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cameronian (talk • contribs) .

Cameronian: Your user page states that you left wikipedia not that you were going to leave wikipedia. If a mediator leaves Wikipedia it is the responsibility of other mediators to take care of the open cases ve leaves behind. If you had the intend to continue mediation you could have stated that intend before announcing your departure. --Fasten ^talk|med 10:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Information

Undergraduate enrollment source: http://www.jmu.edu/instresrch/notes/Vol19no5.pdf

I can't find a definitive source as to whether the motto is "Knowledge is Liberty" or "All Together One". For now I'm leaving it as is. Rtcpenguin 04:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally am leaning towards "Knowledge is Liberty" as being more the "official" motto, but of course I need some definitive source. Still, "All Together One" was first introduced my freshman year, and I never quite understood what that was about... SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"All Together one" is a slogan President Rose used in his 1999 inaugural address to describe the spirit of the university. In past years it's been "The Spirit of Blue Stone Hill," "The Madison Way," and "The JMU Way."All Together One History. According to the website, "All Together One" is the offical university theme. The commencement website is a reference to KiL being used as a motto but I can't find anything stating it as official. I would assume that's the case though. --Strothra 17:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Famous??

I think we need to analyze if alumna are actually famous before listing them in the famous alumni section. I don't think Colin Pine should be in the famous alumni section.(Slate123 05:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Considering the recent discussion regarding Phil Vassar having never actually graduated from JMU and being listed there, I think it's probably about time we look at revamping the section. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Colin Pine is still in the news and anybody who know about Yao Ming or the Houston Rockets knows who he is. That makes him famous in my book. He spent more than four years there.(azileretsis 20:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

Slate is correct. Pine is a translator whose name hardly precedes his reputation. Being a glorified personal assistant to a famous individual does not make that person famous himself. Before someone is listed as famous they should, at the very least, meet the same general standards set aside in WP:BIO. --Strothra 12:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the section title to Distinguished Alumni. I don't think it is important to have Famous alums only, but instead alums who have accomplished themselves in thier respective area.I think that it is important to consider that some accomplished peoploe may not be "famous" and that "famous" may not be the distinguishing factor we need to use. TRL 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I will state that the individual should still meet the general standards set aside in WP:BIO regardless as to whether you use the terms "famous," "notable," or "distinguished." Further, please keep the list in alphabetical order when adding alumni. --Strothra 11:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Are following people really notable alumni to merit that meest the standard set aside in WP:BIO?

Kenneth Bartee: CEO of a company that doesn't even have a section in Wikipedia.

Mike Thomas: Being an executive at a large company does not meet the standards in WP:BIO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.235.176.86 (talk • contribs) .

Inclusion of Subsections in Athletics

Is it really neccesary to have a profile of the football and basketball teams? The profiles of individual selected teams is not encyclopedic. What is encyclopedic are the notable accomplishments of JMU athletics. Not to mention the fact that by selecting certain teams to profile you are inevitably leaving out others. JMU has more sports teams than that. I propose that the section be updated accordingly unless there are objections. --Strothra 22:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to redo the athletics section, restyle it to match the one for Virginia Tech. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try that. I'm a little busy right now so it may take a while.--Strothra 00:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not do a profile of each team? Encyclopedias are used to provide information. When I added the Athletic section, I only had time to add some sections, then they were expanded. I haven't had a chance to add the other teams. I would suggest, rather than trying to be like VATech we instead profile our athletic programs, and their accomplishments. TRL 02:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see that getting to be a bit overpowering and making the article really long. As it is, I don't think that our athletics section is a "good read" as it currently stands. It doesn't "flow". SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well we can consider it a work-in-progress but it seems that it would be rather lengthy and something of that magnitude would befit its own article entirely. I don't know if there are any sort of guidelines for article length and superflousness. --Strothra 04:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article size for guidelines on article length. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete my post regarding COB ranked # 35

According to Wikipedia:

"If you cite college and university rankings, be precise and honest. Claims that an institution "places highly" in rankings are just as vague as claims that it is "prestigious" and "excellent," and are more dishonest in that they seem to cite an authoritative source. Where possible, rankings should be reported as numeric values, with years and sources provided; and as they are such specific facts, they should not occupy an article's lead section."

The numbers are precise, do not delete my section again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk • contribs)

I deleted it because it is an inappropriate section for such things not to mention that there is a good bit of controversy over that particular study as it has since been shown to be skewed and leaves out many of the major schools in the Mid-west and West Coast. If you would like, then you may create a section for rankings but it will be removed again if you do not include multiple rankings. This article must have some standards. Further, do not presume to tell me what to do in my edits especially since you are both a vandal and not signed in. See WP:Bold. In standardizing this article with articles of most universities, please realize that most university articles do not include rankings. You don't see Princeton posting up their rankings. It cheapens the article which is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an advertisement. --Strothra 17:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Strothra about not including the ranking on the basis that the study is flawed or controversial. BusinessWeek has been publishing graduate business school ranking since 1988 while this is the first time they have published undergraduate business school it does not mean that the study is flawed or controversial. I have not read anything that implies that this study is flawed or controversial and Strothra haven't post anything to back his claims. Most universities do include rankings in their wikipedia articles including the current undergraduate BusinessWeek ranking and Princeton University do post their ranking if you read their wikipedia article. I do feel that including the ranking information is inappropriate as a separate section but I feel it is appropriate to include the ranking as a part of the Academics section.(Slate123 17:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

I apologize for the confusion I may have created regarding my decision to leave it out of the article. I was not using that as a sole or even large reason for leaving out a ranking. My primary reasoning is that it is not standard form for Wikipedia articles concerning universities to include such rankings. Further, if we were to decide to include such a ranking then it should be accompanied by other rankings of the university. No attempt to be made to edit the article to include the ranking unless that edit includes a good faith effort at researching all other rankings and including them. Further, please note that this was, in fact, BusinessWeek's first business school ranking which it claimed to be "comprehensive." Such a claim naturally brings controversy. I actually read two news articles criticizing BusinessWeek's approach to creating the ranking after it came out and I'm trying to relocate them. I will post them if I can find time to do so. In the meantime, you may wish to review this article which discusses the natural controversy over business school rankings. Also, this website from Boston College has a section at the top which delves into general controversy concerning university rankings. --Strothra 22:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"In standardizing this article with articles of most universities, please realize that most university articles do not include rankings. You don't see Princeton posting up their rankings. It cheapens the article which is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an advertisement." --Strothra 17:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC). True, Strotha, but Cornell University (a featured article here on Wikipedia, something that Princeton is not) includes its academic rankings and statistics.

Info Box

Could someone edit the info box so that "Graduate Students" actually shows up when you view the article? I don't know how to do this but it needs to be done. --Strothra 15:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Athletics website punctuation error

This is somewhat pedantic and doesn't belong in this article, but the JMU athletic department persists in describing Dukes fans as "Dukes' Fans" (Dukes-apostrophe-ess fans). [[3]] Sure, you could argue that the Dukes own the fans, but if "the Beatles' fans" aren't "Beatles' fans" and "the Knicks' fans" aren't "Knicks' fans" (they are not: they are "Beatles fans" and "Knicks fans"), then why are the Dukes' fans called "Dukes' fans"?

I'll give you that. It does seem somewhat absurd. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's time - a references section is needed

I think it's time that we converted all our little inline link citations to a formal reference section using <ref> tags. We certainly have enough of them that it would not be wasted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed section on the COB due to copyvio

I've removed the section on the College of Business, as it was lifted directly from here. Please do not re-add it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

JMU and Harrisonburg

The "JMU and Harrisonburg" section of the article is an embarrassment. You could at least add something that discusses the following:

The Princeton Review's 2006 guide, Best 361 Colleges, in its profile of JMU, quotes students as recognizing the school's "welcoming environment," "friendly and outgoing" student body, "well-ranked academics" and ability to deliver "more fun than you can have anywhere else." JMU faculty are praised for their "willingness to extend learning outside of the classroom" and their "realistic method of teaching to prepare students for real-world job applications." http://www.jmu.edu/news/TheNewsroom/natl_recognitions.shtml It contradicts the "snobby" depictment and does not mention rankings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.175.112.177 (talk • contribs) .

So far, you have described the James Madison University community, rather than the citizenry of Harrisonburg at large. Unlike many college towns, Harrisonburg is a thriving city on its own, even when JMU is not in session, and thus does not become a "college ghost town" during the summer. As an alumnus of JMU, and someone who lives relatively close by, I agree with the factuality of what you mention, but disagree that this illustrates your point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Friendly and outgoing" contradicts "snobby". That is the point. I didn't mean to include each sentence as part of the argument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.175.112.177 (talk • contribs) .

Well, I still see it as an apples vs. oranges comparison. In your original message, you said, "The Princeton Review's 2006 guide, Best 361 Colleges, in its profile of JMU, quotes students as recognizing the school's 'welcoming environment,' 'friendly and outgoing' student body..." (and blah blah blah you get the point). Note my boldfacing of "students". That's my key. You're discussing student perceptions of JMU the institution.

Compare with the article, that states, "JMU students are generally regarded by Harrisonburg residents as 'snobby.'" Again note my boldfacing. This is why I consider it to be apples/oranges. You're taking two different sets of opinions on different things and making it appear as one. In one, students of JMU are commenting on JMU the institution. In the other, Harrisonburg residents are commenting on students of JMU. So it's not the same thing by any means.

That's more what I'm trying to address here. It's two different things altogether, like "Homer Nixon" (referring to Homer Simpson), where Smithers said, "They spell and pronounce their names differently, sir," indicating that it's a different thing entirely. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're so smart, SchuminWeb, yes you are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.175.112.177 (talk • contribs) .

Since the anonymous user didn't do much in the way of providing something cogent, how about this for an argument?: there is nothing in the article that cites a Harrisonburg resident describing a student as "snobby", or as anything else similar for that matter. Saying "generally regarded" is probably a good example of weasel wording. I assert that the whole paragraph should be removed unless proper citations can be provided by an editor. --Takeel 13:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm new to wiki, so I'm not sure how to edit this correctly. Can SchuminWeb edit the paragraph? I dare not out of fear of crashing the website.

Why not try your hand at it? It's practically impossible to screw up the site, and even if you do make a mistake, the wiki format ensures that it's reversible. See WP:BOLD for more information. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Potential featured article?

I've done a bit of an overhaul on our article, converting all the references to the <ref> format, adding information about a previous attempt in 2001 to cut the athletic teams, adding a lot more wikilinks, and generally giving the whole article some much-needed attention.

With that done, has anyone given any thought about making this article into a featured article? I think we're well on our way, and it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The most well done articles on colleges and universities on Wikipedia, in my opinion, have a lot of pictures of various points across the campus. Could we post some additional non-copy protected images of JMU before we submit as a featured article?

You're looking at someone who did a lot of photography of JMU throughout my four and a half years there (I loved it so much that I stayed an extra semester, ha ha). As a result, I've got lots of photos of campus dating from 1999-2003. I also have some photos from later on. Let me go digging. Besides the image of Wilson Hall, I've also got one of Potomac Hall already on Commons at Image:Potomac hall.jpg. I'll upload a bunch to Commons so we'll have something to pick and choose from. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmmkay... I've uploaded a bunch of shots of campus that I've taken over the years. I've also added a link to a Commons category of such shots. It's also inspired me to do an all-day photo shoot at JMU. And I'm not afraid of the parking Nazis, since they have nothing to use to make me pay, so I will feel free to park wherever I wish. Any areas in particular that you'd like to see? SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, not having a car here saves me from them. I'm a bit afraid of what I can look forward to next year...As for picture taking, I'd suggest the following places:

• ISAT
• The new stadium turf (so much better than the old kind)
• Marching band practice field
• Convo center
• D-Hall and some of the newer food places on campus (Top Dog, C-Store East, etc.)
• Any other places that you haven't taken pictures of, or any of the same locations you have older pictures from

I can't think of anything else. You don't need to get all of these, but at least then there is a large pool to choose from to be included in the article. -- Johnny06man 20:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To add onto what Johnny06man had said, I suggest some images of the Bluestone area, though I'm aware that we already have one photo of Wilson Hall (and I wish we could get NEWER shot of that building, too). Such beatiful stone architecture should not go unnoticed!

I agree, it certainly is possible, but we do still have a lot to do. Before going for FA, we should submit the article for peer review. This should give us more ideas on what is lacking. Also, I agree with the above poster that more pictures could be used. If I can get my girlfriend to lend me her camera, I could probably get some more taken. What locations would we want pictures of? -- Johnny06man 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I've already got a bunch, and I'm going to upload some of those. Also, yes - we need a peer review. I'm somewhat familiar with the steps to featuredom, but not all that well-versed on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also have a book that is on my to-read list called Rooted on Blue Stone Hill by Nancy Bondurant Jones that I got at the Green Valley Book Fair. When I read that, I'll see what's worth citing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Andy Perrine

I noticed that a user named Andy Perrine has edited the article. While usernames do not necessarily reflect a "real life" identity, I feel that it may be important to note that a man named Andrew Perrine is Associate Vice President of Communications and Marketing at JMU. --Takeel 20:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)