Talk:University of Maine

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Flagship RFC

Is calling UMaine the flagship of the University of Maine System subjective and/or POV?--SarekOfVulcanExtra (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Is being a flagship university an objective fact? What does it mean?

It's both. And largely meaningless in either case. It's an "objective fact" when an entity with presumed authority to bestow the designation does so (like the administrators of a state university system). But in the academic context the term has no objective meaning, so what the administrators *mean* by the term is entirely open to interpretation (both theirs in bestowing it and ours in interpreting it). Sometimes it seems very simple - like Maine deciding that the oldest and largest campus in their system is its "flagship campus". (I believe that's what they did.) But other times it's only so much posturing - like Michigan deciding that it has *four* flagship schools, or University of Texas-San Antonio trying to "achieve" flagship status. The term is "objective" in that in some cases it can be stated, with sources, that a school "is" a flagship. But on the other hand a "flagship" school is almost literally anything anyone says it is and for that reason the subjective / marketing / puffery / PR aspect of the term is inescapable. Really - one might as well just say that this school or that school is a "blue ribbon" school. It would convey just as much meaning, with just as much authority. My view is, if a university system, state educational agency or legislature describes a school as "the" or "a" flagship, then it is (as little as it may mean). If there's no such designation then it isn't. JohnInDC (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with JohnInDC. It is subjective, no more than a slogan on a home page (as cited at University of Maine article and therefore must be prose-attributed in the text. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

To be consistant with WP:NPOV (in section above), an appropriate prose-attribution for this issue in this article would look like this:

The University of Maine, established in 1865, is often referred to as the flagship university of the University of Maine System. ref:“USA TODAY's 2006 College Tuition & Fees Survey.” USA TODAY. (Accessed May 13, 2009). http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-08-30-tuition-survey_x.htm Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am not in favor of any unattractive or contrived solution to this issue wherein the prose in an article suffers. I must confess that, as cynical as I am about the term "flagship" and the way it's been coopted by PR and marketing interests, in some instances the designation of a school as a "flagship" is both obvious and uncontroversial. Maine itself is a good example. A hard case might be Florida and Florida State - or two other schools, one older and better recognized, the other newer but also very well-accomplished - both claiming the designation. Make *them* source it, because the answer's not obvious. Here in this article, it strikes me as a pretty pedantic point, to be honest. I mean - it's so obvious that even if the Maine system hadn't "designated" this campus as the flagship, I'd apply the term just in colloquial use. Like you might call Chicago the "main city" in Illinois, even though the legislature hasn't actually said so. JohnInDC (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting links to this discussion from the talk pages of U.S. universities that say they're flagship universities. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We can say that Chicago is the largest city in Illinois, but we can't call Chicago the "most important" city in Illinois: that's subjective. It's not clear what "flagship" means. By the naval analogy, and according to the Wikipedia article, it means "leading": is this an assertion that that university does things and then other universities follow its example (to an extent not true of other universities)? If that's what it means, then such a claim would need to be verified. If it means largest etc., it's more precise and informative to say in what ways it's largest. "flagship" is vague and ambiguous. The fact that a university has been designated as a flagship by a state system is an interesting and notable fact. The fact that a Wikipedian considers a university to be in some sense a flagship is the type of opinion we don't assert in articles, IMO. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

But flagship also has a well-understood colloquial usage. Metaphorical. Rather than the "leading" school, call it the "standard-bearer". (Which I suppose is precisely what a "flagship" is.) In some instances the term applies neatly and cleanly, and in those cases it can simply be stated as fact. The *problem* with the term in the university context is that it has become debased by those who would try to expand the term beyond its essential, metaphorical use; and by the fact that the metaphor does not apply well in many instances (e.g. a state with more than one large, established, prestigious school or campus). I return to my example of Maine, a state with a single system with a single, dominant campus and various satellite campuses. In that case the term "flagship" is quite appropriate - "subjective" in the sense that, no, it's not documented but "objective" in the sense that it's indisputable by anyone except those given to dispute. In the context of this article, the term is accurate, easily comprehended and a good use of the English language to convey a simple point. Again where we get into trouble with *this* term is where its application is ambiguous or disputed. In those cases we should require documentation, because the fact is not obvious and it needs to be established. JohnInDC (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If reliable, third party sources could be cited that say Chicago is the "flagship city of Illinois" then that could be in the Chicago article. As long as you can cite reliable sources that say a particular university is considered the flagship university of a university system there is no reason why it can't appear in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Those who control the university system are well within their rights to declare one or more campuses "flagship(s)" and for us to not report that would be ridiculous. In fact, I find this whole line of questioning ridiculous. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying it shouldn't be stated where it can be established. The dispute seems to be, stating it in cases where (in the view of some of us), the designation is obvious, but never officially "declared" in some fashion. (I do agree it's ridiculous but for entirely different reasons, it would seem.) JohnInDC (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is disputing whether to include a statement about flagship. The dispute is over the wording: do we say "is the flagship university" as a fact, or do we prose-attribute it e.g. "has been designated as", "is considered", "is named as" etc.? Rreagan007, it's not at all clear to me what your position is on this: your comment could be interpreted as meaning that it's OK for an article to state that a university "is considered" to be the flagship; I'm not disputing that (provided it's verified with a reliable source). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My experience would suggest that the vast majority of the time that "flagship" is being used it is used, it is unreferenced and I believe most attempts at referencing the claim would be stretch interpretations. If it can't be referenced, take it out. I would agree that the term has been co-opted by marketing interests to connote "high quality" much as "selective" and "prestigious" have been similarly diluted. As has been previously mentioned, in the cases of states with multiple university systems (California, Texas, Florida, etc.) the problem of such a designation becomes particularly ornery and likely meaningless when there are more than one "flagships". I see no reason to replace easily-understood and objective facts (largest, oldest, etc.) with an ambiguous reference to "flagship" especially in the absence of any reliable sources asserting "flagship" status. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Madcoverboy, you've replaced a statement of fact (that the university is named as the flagship, (i.e. on the web page of the university system) with a plain statement that the university is the flagship. Do you believe your edit reflects consensus here in that regard? When you say "stretch interpretations" I think you mean that it would be difficult to verify that a university is the flagship, since that's subjective. However, we can certainly verify that it has been called the flagship by certain sources. Would it be OK with you if I replace with "...is the flagship university of University of Maine System" with "...is named by the University of Maine System as its flagship university"? To me, this would restore NPOV by replacing a subjective statement with a statement of fact (i.e. it's a fact that it's named on the system website as the flagship), as required by core content policy: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" (WP:ASF). If you disagree with this proposed edit, please explain why. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing, "is named by" is stilted and clumsy. Just call it "the flagship" and drop a reference to the place where it's so designated. If they call it the flagship, it *is* the flagship - fact - and we don't need the implicit qualification of the less attractive sentence structure. JohnInDC (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with JohnInDC. If the university system has designated it as the flagship then it is, unless there is some higher authority that contradicts it. The only possible higher authority I can even think of would be the Maine legislature, and I don't think they have addressed the matter. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. If we have a source (as we do for this article) indicating that the university system considers it to be the flagship, and if the Wikipedia Flagship university article or redirect made it clear that that's what "flagship" means (i.e., "is the flagship" means "has been designated by the state system as the flagship"), (which actually it doesn't though), then I guess in that case it would be OK to just say it's the flagship. It would be a fact in that case. Under current conditions it's not a fact: the definition at Flagship university is quite ambiguous. On the other hand, for some universities if all we have is a newspaper article calling it the flagship, I don't think we can necessarily conclude that it's been designated as the flagship by the state system, so we might have to leave it out or say something different, e.g. "is considered" or "has been called". Note that my objection is based on the core policy. An opinion by one or a few editors about attractiveness of wording doesn't override core policy. I don't see a problem with "has been designated" or "named": it sounds quite dignified to me, and not unattractive. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say the definition of "flagship university" in the flagship university article is ambiguous in that sometimes it could be difficult to tell which university in a system best meets the definition. However, when an authoritative source, such as the university system itself, tells us which university is the flagship, there is no more ambiguity. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. And so you can state the fact (appropriately referenced) without the unnecessary qualifier ("has been designated by"), just like you would the statement, "Chicago is the largest city in Illinois" (rather than "Rand McNally describes Chicago as the largest city in the State of Illinois"). JohnInDC (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, John, I was starting to wonder if I was crazy for holding that opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break I

I took a crack at revising the description, slightly, at the Flagship page. I have no particular pride in the product, so have at it if you think it misses the mark. JohnInDC (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, JohnInDC: that was an improvement. I further edited it to "The term may also be used to refer to a designation formally bestowed by a state university system".

Sarek, you're not crazy. It's fine to have opinions, even if they sometimes differ from other peoples'. I'm rethinking this. A term can have more than one definition, and it's OK to use it according to one of the definitions. If the term means a bestowing of flagship status by a university system, then that's objective fact (if it's verified). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with JohnInDc on some matters stated above, I do NOT agree that the situation with the University of Maine article is open-and-shut or at all clear cut. No evidence whatever has been presented that any of the faculty at the other six universities in the University of Maine System now look to, or have ever looked to the University of Maine for leadership in any area. In some recent years, the student population at another campus has actually been larger than that at the University of Maine campus, and other campuses have programs that UMaine does not have which are clearly exemplary and display leadership. No suitable reference has yet been produced with more weight than a mere slogan on a home page indicating the UMaine has been officially designated a "flagship" of the system. It remains important that a reliable source be cited to indicate such a designation was ever made in anything but a public relations effort. It is just not credible unless it is properly prose-attributed in a manner that has been suggested by more than one editor here.

It seems unfortunate that some advocates of the University of Maine are so determined to impose their promotional POV on this article that they cannot even manage proper prose attribution of it. It certainly does UMaine no credit whatever. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No evidence whatever has been presented that any of the faculty at the other six universities in the University of Maine System now look to, or have ever looked to the University of Maine for leadership in any area. Ummmm, what would the opinions of faculty at other universities in the UMS matter to a Wikipedia article on UMaine? Those would be opinions, not facts, and clearly they'd be POV, and suggest a COI. And when did this become about "leadership"? That's not suggested by a discussion about "flagship". Are you really trying to argue something else, perhaps about UMaine?216.220.226.172 (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In some recent years, the student population at another campus has actually been larger than that at the University of Maine campus, and other campuses have programs that UMaine does not have which are clearly exemplary and display leadership. Again, how does enrollment matter? Is there a definition of "flagship" somewhere that involves enrollment? What campus had a higher student population? Is there some reference for that? And where does "flagship" designation by UMS to UMaine in any way diminish the values of programs at other institutions? Those other programs have merit, or they don't. And if there's any perception that the word "flagship" so destroys these other campuses, that's clearly just a POV. Where did a discussion on "flagship" become about "leadership"? Where's that coming from? 216.220.226.172 (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I could care less about UMaine. Never been there, couldn't point to Orono on a map. (Just so it's understood that I've got no rooting interest.) And I have to say that this is growing silly. If you go to maine.edu you wind up at the home page of the *System*, not of UMaine. "Maine's Public Universities", right there at the top. So right away you learn that if you read something on a umaine.edu page, it's not just UMaine blowing its own horn but the System saying whatever it cares to say about the universities. And even if the administrators at Orono were responsible for putting up "UMaine" content in the first instance, how long do you think content would stand if it contradicted System policy? What I've seen is enough. There doesn't need to be a vote of faculty or university presidents. It's not an election, it's not an anointment; it's just an administrative designation. If the System *talks* about the Orono campus as "the flagship", then it is the flagship. To demand more is, in all likelihood, to simply remove the term from Wikipedia. (Here's a System press release referring to Orono as the flagship, if further information is necessary to persuade anyone else: [1]. JohnInDC (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For purposes of disclosure, I too have never been to Maine, know nobody from Maine, have no connections whatsoever to the State of Maine or any university located in Maine. And the only thing I know about the University of Maine is that the University of Maine System calls the school the system's flagship because I read it on the system website. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Debates like this make me want to drive nails into my eyes. Over 9,000 words of debate about whether or not to include "flagship university" in the lead when the rest of the article is devoid of content? It's really simple, either a reliable source like the University of Maine System or the Maine Legislature has made such a declaration about it being the flagship university and this declaration can be readily verified, or no such official declaration has been made. The cited reference from the University of Maine System clearly states "the University of Maine (UMaine) is the flagship of Maine’s university system". Case closed. Move the frak on. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears we have reached the point now where the impatience of some editors trumps Wikipedia policy, and if I say my skin is purple, it is certainly purple. Earlier in this conversation an allegation was made that UMaine was designated the "flagship university" by the state Legislature. No citation has yet been provided to a reliable source to substantiate this statement. Legislatures leave a paper trail. If the statement is accurate, there should be a public record of some action by the Legislature that can be cited as a reliable source. Absent reference to a reliable source, it appears ANYTHING goes, so long as it suits the preferences of a few impatient editors. Any silly assertion on the home page of an apparent superior authority, no matter how careless or damaging to its relations to others. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of press releases from the Maine State Legislature such as http://www.maine.gov/legis/house_gop/news/tardyfellow.htm that are on the maine.gov/legis/ section that refer to UMaine as the flagship university. Their online site isn't easy to search, but without too much effort I found that PDQ. 216.220.226.172 (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No one said that the Maine legislature did anything. All discussions about the legislature were hypothetical or examples. And I am at a loss to understand what possible "damage" the one sentence in this Wikipedia article can be causing, particularly when we all agree that the term "flagship" is about 99% hot air to begin with. JohnInDC (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One possible type of damage is to Wikipedia's reputation. People (including myself and other editors involved in this discussion, as well as people who have never edited Wikipedia but who read this article) may get the impression that Wikipedia is not serious about verifiability, neutral point of view, and accuracy of details. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break II

Declarations on maine.gov regarding flagship status:

• "Maine’s flagship public university, the University of Maine, is a research university" [2]
• "it is important for the Trustees to maintain the educational status of the University of Maine as the state’s “Flagship” institution." [3]
• "at the University of Maine’s flagship campus in Orono" [4]
• "As Maine’s land-grant, flagship university, UMaine is central to..." [5]
• "Please remember that a difference exists between the University of Maine and the University of Maine System. The University of Maine is a single institution, located in Orono, and is the flagship institution of the seven-member University of Maine System." [6]

I agree with JohnInDC that "flagship" is obviously a vapid term, but insofar as it is a verifiable fact from several reliable sources, it should not be excluded from the article. I cannot fathom how it could even possibly be construed as damaging nor why this continues to be the primary hang-up when so much of the rest of the article is in desperate need of attention. In the name of achieving some sort of consensus and moving on beyond this silly episode, I recommend removing it from the lead and moving it down to the "Administration and organization" section. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand wanting to end the discussion, but I don't see that as in any way an argument for keeping out the simple words "is named as"; I don't see how including those short, factual, low-key words is in any way damaging. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation 3 shows that the institution IS the State's flagship university. Just use the word flagship and that citation (or indeed any of those citations) Problem solved.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry: what do you mean? What definition of "flagship" are you using when you say it "is" the flagship university? And what part of the citation (Summary of the Commission on Higher Education Governance) supports that? I see a sentence which has the word "flagship" in quotation marks: what does that mean? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Same definition as maine.gov - it's the one that the State of Maine is emphasising as it's priority/lead establishment.. The use of capitalisation and quotes indicates that it is being used in a specific sense, not just as advertising puff.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't need the passive and convoluted phrasing, "is named as", when the source you are citing is definitive. "Barack Obama holds the position described in the U.S. Constitution as 'president'". What's the point of it? What subtle, better information is conveyed by the indirect statement that isn't conveyed by the simple, declarative sentence, supported by a citation to the source? JohnInDC (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To say it another way - the standard for wording something a particular, wordier way has to be better than, "this phrase isn't harmful". It has to be that the phrase is *helpful*. And I fail to see it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words Rreagan007 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh come now, really, anybody can say anything they wish on a home page, but that does not make it true or verifiable. Is this the new standard for WP:reliable source? I guess we better make a change then on the reliable source page that says "anything on any home page is a reliable source?" The logic here is amazing. Amazingly silly.

For example, the home page of Maharishi University of Management contains the following statement:

"Seniors’ responses put Maharishi University of Management among the top bachelor’s and master’s institutions nationally in NSSE’s “benchmarks of effective educational practice,” based on data from a total of 135,000 students at 613 colleges and universities, surveyed between 2000 and 2002. Seniors’ responses put Maharishi University among the top 3% of U.S. colleges for active and collaborative learning, among the top 3% of U.S. for active and collaborative learning, and among the top 26% of U.S. colleges for level of academic challenge." Source: Maharishi University of Management. Active Learning and Student Engagement. Accessed May 17, 2009. [[7]]

Does this make it a credible statement or a reliable source? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Herring. The question is whether the Maine University System is a reliable source, on a matter it has authority (unique authority in fact) to speak. JohnInDC (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And it is at least interesting to note that while the decription of the University of Maine on the University of Maine System home page says it "is the flagship of Maine's university system," the home page of the University of Maine itself does not use this term, but (somewhat more modestly) states it is "A Member of the University of Maine System." So, which one is authoritative, the child or the parent? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally confused now. Is it a problem, or instead preferable, that a school self-identify as a flagship? JohnInDC (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) From the President's Message in the UMaine course catalog: "Since its beginnings in 1865, UMaine has grown to become an indispensable statewide resource, proudly serving in its unique role as Maine’s flagship university." By my tally, that's the university itself, the system of which it is a part, and state government which funds each all recognizing its flagship status now. Move along, everybody. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you imagine you are herding sheep here? There is certainly nothing resembling consensus here (consensus = universal agreement, remember, not majority voting or "my gang is bigger than your gang?"). But there is some pretty strong dissembling in attempt to circumvent WP:POV. Perhaps if JohnInDC shouts a bit louder he will be more persuasive, but I doubt it. The phrase needs to be prose-attributed to be consistent with WP:POV. It's that simple. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I (and it seems like most other editors commenting here) disagree. Incidentally, I don't think that laying out your position as unassailable helps your case. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, Wikipedia consensus is not "universal agreement". Wikipedia:NOTUNANIMITY#Not_unanimity is perfectly on point (quoting the paragraph in full):

Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward.

Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system. There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stone wall the editing process.

Editors should make a good faith effort to reach a consensus. That means that the dissenting party has to state how the current proposal fails to meet the interests of the wider group, rather than merely stating they will not accept it. But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action.

JohnInDC (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Dr. Berdahl's analysis is the most correct, especially with regard to Florida. There is no way FSU is not a flagship university campus and a strong case could be made it is the original and sole flagship university campus in Florida.

Sirberus (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mervyn previously asked if the University or the University of Maine System was more qualified to designate itself as a "flagship institution." I would like to point out that both UMaine and the UMS clearly identify UMaine as the flagship institution of the University of Maine System, UMS via their designation on their homepage, and the University of Maine by their crest. As stated on the University of Maine's webpage [8] , "The University crest embodies the history of the University of Maine and its position as the flagship university of the University of Maine System. UMaine’s traditional values are represented by the crest shape. The date refers to the university’s founding, and the three flags inside the crest represent the institution’s flagship status and symbolize its mission of teaching, research and public service. Maine’s natural resources, and the university’s position as a land grant university and Sea Grant College are depicted in the colors of light blue and dark blue that stand for the sea and sky." 72.224.202.28 (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is just plain silly. Next we'll be justifying edits by references to reading tea leaves in a teacup. The statement in this article about Orono being a "flagship university" clearly violates WP:NPOV no matter how much its proponents wish it was otherwise. Interesting, tho, how many of the arguments presented here by proponents of the University of Maine at Orono to excuse their blatant disregard of WP:NPOV mirror so closely the arguments presented by proponents of Scientology on that article page, which got them banned from editing on that article. Perhaps a similar action is warranted here? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You have no basis to assert that every editor in this discussion has acted with anything but good faith. Please check your partisanship at the door and cease accusing other editors of being POV warriors simply because consensus is contrary to your particular POV. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to give orders to anyone? My position is to support WP:NPOV. IF this is consensus, it is contrary to WP:NPOV. And one claims on one's user page to combat boosterism, and other NPOV violations in University articles? Very funny. Really. Hilarious. And now one aggravates the situation more by being uncivil towards me? I've made numerous constructive edits on this article to improve it, as I have on many others. All one has done is give marching orders. See: WP:Civility please. Or has one forgotten it? Does one practice what one preaches? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Then explain why you again refer to the University of Maine as "Orono". And why in your comment you call it "University of Maine at Orono". It's legally and exactly "University of Maine". You are constantly insulting those who point that out. You are constantly baiting with referring to it that way. How would people at USM like it if we called it "Pogo"? 130.111.163.179 (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break III

The following four paragraphs quote from WP:NPOV. The second sentence of the article University of Maine does not conform to this standard.

"The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides."

"When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources. [The second statement is appropriate for Wikipedia]."

"Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into a neutral statement by attributing or substantiating it. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true."

"Where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."

The preceding material is presented here to assist any who may have overlooked its significance in the current discussion. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that the state government of Maine, the University of Maine system, and the University of Maine at Orono all refer to the latter at the "flagship" campus of the system, perhaps you can suggest a more authoritative source to refute these "opinions" or a more reliable source to substantiate the statement? I see absolutely no reason why we should report anything butnot report the fact that the University of Maine is the flagship campus of the system. It's a largely meaningless distinction, but a neutral and objective fact readily demonstrated by a preponderance of reliable and authoritative sources with absolutely no neutrality problems besides those you choose to project upon it. I will remind all editors to conduct themselves assuming good faith of others and acting civilly lest their actions be reported to WP:WQA. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain that this (now meaningless) debate will continue as long as both sides care to carry it on. I for one am willing to cede the last word, if that will finally end it; and I recommend the same course of non-action to the others who share the consensus point of view. JohnInDC (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have carefully examined ALL of the supposed references in the article and on this talk page which purport to provide verifiable reliable sources to the effect that describing the University of Maine as a "flagship university" is a fact, rather than mere opinion. I invite others to do the same. They include:

• A passing reference in a document about a different subject published by an unrelated agency, the Maine State Planning Office, which has no role in higher education in Maine other than to advise the Governor.
• A passing reference in a report of a legislative commission concerning the status of the Education Network of Maine (ENM), a distance education operation located on a different campus, which has no binding effect on anything.
• A passing reference in a press release from a legislator announcing his visit to his alma mater.
• A passing reference in a press release from the University of Maine System Office concerning the resignation of a university president.
• A passing reference in a press release from a former Chancellor who resigned, concerning system budget matters.
• A reference to the Orono campus on the home page of the University of Maine System for the Orono campus.

NONE of these references rises to the level of an official designation of the Orono campus as a "flagship university." ALL of them are unofficial descriptive statements of opinion, which do NOT constitue verifiable reliable sources. If this is the best that can be found, it appears proponents of this POV are unable to find any official designation of Orono as a "flagship university," but must rely on repeated references of an unofficial nature, most of which were made in passing during discussions of other matters.

It appears that references to the Orono campus as a "flagship university" have attained all the exalted mythical status of an "urban legend" without any verifiable official action by the State of Maine or the University of Maine System.

Some editors have stated falsely here that I have advocated removing any reference to a "flagship university" from the article, but any fair review of this discussion will determine that argument has NOT been advanced by this editor. This editor has maintained only that the phrase "flagship university" be prose-attributed as required by WP:NPOV (above) and as previously suggested by User:Coppertwig (above) and others (above). This would not require removal from the article of the phrase "flagship university," but would merely require addition of a few other harmless words such as "often referred to as the flagship university," which is a factual and neutral statement in harmony with WP:NPOV. Those words would not in any way reduce the stature of the University of Maine.

Some editors have even suggested (above) that an apparent "consensus" on this matter somehow supercedes and takes precedent over the plain meaning of WP:NPOV. I reject that position as untenable, and note in passing that the WP:Arbitration Committee recently explicitly rejected similar positions in its decision on the Scientology dispute here [9]. Note especially the statements reproduced from that decision below, about WP:NPOV being "non-negotiable," which is exactly my position in the current discussion:

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to (i) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality of sources

3) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and sources

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, it continues to puzzle me that there is so much determined resistance to implementing WP:NPOV in this manner in this article. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

With all lack of respect, which you don't have... you're hiding behind anonymity, and simply afraid to admit your real motives.67.251.33.247 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break IV

I would just note, again, that this debate will end only when one of the two camps realizes the futility of trying to change the other's point of view, and stops trying. JohnInDC (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so I can get this straight, 18,000 characters have been expended in this debate because "UMaine the flagship university of the University of Maine System" is apparently POV but "UMaine is often referred to as the flagship university of the University of Maine system" is NPOV? Madcoverboy (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I haven't counted the characters, but yes, that appears to be the case. Or some comparable language ("prose"). That was the proposal in the section above entitled "Appropriate prose-attribution" dated May 14, but there were some earlier variations proposed as well, any one of which would have resolved this dispute without recourse to threats of administrative action or use of intimidation against me by those who oppose my defense of WP:NPOV. Didn't you read that stuff before commenting? Does it seem silly to you too now? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I see Sarek has recently changed the second sentence in the lead to include the phrase "has been designated" which would be perfectly acceptable if a verifiable reliable source was provided as a reference for that statement. Unfortunately, the University of Maine System does not "designate" anything merely by posting a statement on its home page, as is the case with the first reference. Any official action of the University of Maine System requires a vote of its Board of Trustees, which actions are also posted on its home page. A direct reference to the minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting in which such a designation action was approved would constitute a verifiable reliable source. But that is not what was provided here. Can one be provided to support the new language?

Similarly, a state legislature does not act to designate anything by publishing a report of a legislative commission, which is what the second reference provided here was. A state legislature "designates" by voting on a proposal. A direct reference to a legislative resolution approved by the Maine Legislature would constitute a verifiable reliable source. But that is not what was provided here in the second reference for this supposed "designation" statement. Such actions by the legislature are all published in Maine Revised Statutes Annotated and the relevant year's Session Laws. Can one be provided to support the new language? If it could, the matter would be settled.

The alternative language "is often referred to" is less demanding in its need for a verifiable reliable source, which is why I suggested it previously. Several examples have been provided by others that illustrate the factual nature of this phrase. But then, I was just trying to be helpful by suggesting it weeks ago. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the various problems that are now emerging with this tricky phrase "designated as", I would prefer to return to the original, simpler, less technical "is". JohnInDC (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Unhelpful.

How about "is referred to as", with the current refs? That strikes the "often", which I see as POV, and removes the "is" and "designated" phrases you dislike, and keeps the refs various other people here have seen as suitable for establishing the term.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. I am not willing to compromise on this for the sake on one individual editor two editors who is are so far out of step with everyone else. This is and always has been a non-issue. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind. I agree that it is unnecessary but it's good to try to find common ground. The phrase fairly well captures underlying truth in any case (compare: "Connecticut is referred to as 'The Nutmeg State'") and while, as matter of style, I prefer active voice and direct constructions, this is not a notably unattractive departure. JohnInDC (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Squeaky wheels shouldn't get the grease in this case. I see no reason to diminish the quality of the prose and encyclopedic voice to appease any editor's unfounded projections of a POV onto an obviously neutral statement of fact supported by multiple reliable and authoritative sources. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ElKevbo - note that he's not out of step with everyone else. Coppertwig has also opposed a flat statement of "is" in the past. Madcoverboy: I don't see that my proposed wording is any more POV than the current phrasing. JohnInDC points out a similar phrase that I don't think anyone here would object to. My proposal avoids the WEASEL words of "some or often" -- every reader can decide for hirself how often it's referred to given its use in the references. Would it be so bad to just back off on this issue and put it to bed? Mervyn does good work here: let's just assume good faith and all agree on something. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(<<outdent) I would accept "is referred to as": thank you for suggesting that as a compromise, SarekOfVulcan. I'm back to opposing a plain "is" again for now, since Madcoverboy has admitted it's a "largely meaningless distinction", as I rather suspected. For a statement to be verifiable, it has to have a meaning, and that meaning has to be clear to the reader. I might accept "is" under some circumstances, but if even editors on this talk page can't specify what the term means, I don't see how the statement can be verified or the meaning made clear to the reader. (It's OK if the meaning is simply that the university system has so officially designated the university; but a vague collection of possible meanings doesn't work.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been following this debate over the past months without getting involved. Mervyn Emrys and I have interacted over some GA noms that he had worked on (eg. Lynton Caldwell) - I did the GA review). Mervyn did some good work there, and at Norman Wengert where I think he got pulled up on a GA review process that wasn't as ideal as it could have been. They're both excellent contributions. Mervyn Emrys, I think you have taken a pretty 'firm' approach in dealing with other editors here that may be making the going harder for you (eg. your opening salvo, which included the phrase "...not a ship of any kind, and its proponents should have the grace to restrain themselves from inflicting their self-important POV on the rest of the world...") and you might find you have more progress if you keep the temperature of debate a bit cooler. But my comment might equally apply to some of the reactions, such as "You've already shown yourself to not understand the concept of a "flagship university" based on your own comments above about ships. You're out of your element", from Stormde. Anyway, while I understand that the term 'flagship' may be given some formal status by legislatures, I have to agree on balance with Mervyn Emrys here, because the word has an everyday meaning which is the one most Wikipedia users will bring to the article: "the item in a group considered most important esp. in establishing a public image" (Concise Collins Dictionary); "something considered a leader or superior example of its kind" (New Shorter Oxford Dictionary). Regardless of the Maine legislature, or the use of this terminology within some United States university systems, to a lay reader, this term has a particular meaning in relation to quality or superiority, and that, I think, is what Mervy Emrys wishes to avoid, and which I agree should be avoided, for a NPOV lead. Like Mervyn and Coppertwig, I would prefer the omission of the word altogether. Like several parties, I am prepared to support a compromise, such as proposed above. Like Coppertwig, I'd thank Sarek for his proposal. (For information, the closest I have got to Maine and its Universities is a week in New York when I was ten years old). hamiltonstone (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Elkevbo: If this page states that the university is a flagship university, what does that mean? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This Clintonian parsing of "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" is farcical. Nor do I understand how the Maine legislature suddenly became the sole reliable arbiter of making these claims despite the aforementioned sources from both the university itself as well as the university system asserting the same. I think the distinction is substantively meaningless, so I fail to see the need to water it down, especially by using weasel words and imprecise langauge that doesn't (in my view) even diminish whatever POV editors are imaginging it connotes. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also having a hard time squaring away Coppertwig's earlier position at the Flagship university RFC that "For the record, I think it's fine if the University of Maine system wants to designate the University of Maine campus located at Orono as the system's "flagship"." Similarly, JohnInDC said on the same that "But if a system wants to designate a flagship, and it does so (as Maine appears to have done for the main campus of the university) then it's fair to report that essentially meaningless fact in the article about the school." The cited source in the article from the University of Maine System clearly and unamiguously states "the University of Maine (UMaine) is the flagship of Maine’s university system". I apologize if I am taking these out of context or am otherwise misinterpreting them, but in light of their more recent comments, I don't know why some editors suddenly have to defend or define the University of Maine System's clear, neutral statement of fact. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose this as a compromise: Remove the statement "The University of Maine is the flagship university of the University of Maine System" from the lead and place it in the University of Maine#Organization and administration section. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've come to believe that Mervyn's point above is a good one. While for most purposes that's sufficient, for an encyclopedia article, we can't clearly state that that's a official designation, rather than just ad copy that wasn't challenged. I've written to the UMS office asking if there was ever an official designation; failing an affirmative response, it's not incorrect to back the language off to "is referred to as". "Is often referred to as", to me, implies that the statement is sometimes challenged, which I've never seen a reference for. I think that Wikipedia will best be served by backing off the definitive statement I've been supporting until now. While the references we have are certainly good enough for an uncontroversial statement, the three editors speaking against the current phrasing indicates that it's not as uncontroversial as we think it is.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the designation here, such as it is, is unambiguous and fair. I also think that the term is (in Maine at least) mostly just air. It is, in essence, the cited sources' way of saying, "This is what we offer as an exemplar of the University of Maine system - isn't it a grand thing?". None of that seems the least bit controversial; yet as Sarek notes, here we have controversy. All I can figure is that the term carries some kind of weight either in circles in which I don't travel (academia?) or different people simply carry widely different interpretations of what the reference means, or implies. JohnInDC (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for the compromise, SarekOfVulcan, and thank you for notifying me of the RfCU: that was good of you. As far as I understand, the arguments against prose attribution are (1) that extra words are not to be inserted without a reason, and (2) that the prose attribution might imply some POV or imply uncertainty not expressed by any source. Stating that one is unwilling to compromise is not in itself an argument, and Madcoverboy's statement about "farcical" is a straw man: nobody is arguing about the meaning of the word "is". The argument is about the meaning of the word "flagship". Stating baldly that the university "is" the flagship may mislead the reader: some readers might assume it means that we've verified that the university has been officially so designated by the legislature or university system, and other readers might assume it means that we've verified that other universities in the system tend to follow this university's example, whereas in fact I don't think we've verified either of those statements. Perhaps worse for Wikipedia's reputation for NPOV, readers might interpret such a statement as endorsement by Wikipedia of the quality of a particular university, as hamiltonstone suggests above. In response to argument (1): the reason for adding the words is to conform to WP:V, one of Wikipedia's core policies, since a meaningless, vague or ambiguous statement cannot, in my opinion, be considered verifiable (unless possibly each possible interpretation has been verified, which is not the case here). In response to argument (2): there are probably ways to put in prose attribution which sound OK as far as POV is concerned. Some possibilities: "is called", "is known as", "is widely accepted as", "is emphasized[/honored/lauded/selected] by the UMS as its flagship", etc.

NPOV policy requires an impartial tone; see WP:Neutral point of view#Characterizing opinions of people's work. We make statements of fact, and report statements of opinion by others; we don't make statements ourselves about the quality of institutions.

JohnInDC: I'm really not understanding what you're saying. Your first two sentences seem to contradict each other. If you think the statement is "unambiguous", what do you think it means?

JohnInDC: Wikipedia articles report verifiable facts; they don't express sentiments such as "isn't it grand?".

Madcoverboy: if a statement doesn't conform to NPOV, moving it from the lead to another part of the article would still leave it not conforming to NPOV.

I'm not in favour of completely deleting the word "flagship": the fact that the university has been called this seems to be a notable fact.

Reliable sources don't usually have Wikipedia's NPOV policy. They may have other purposes: to entertain; to spark the reader's imagination; or to promote the interests of a particular organization, etc. They may decide to use an ambiguous, vague or subjective term such as "flagship", which might suit their purposes perfectly. However, here at Wikipedia our purpose is to present verifiable facts. If someone thinks it's a verifiable fact that this university is the flagship, please explain to me what fact has been verified: what does "flagship" mean? It's clearly verifiable that the university is referred to as the flagship, so let's state that as a fact. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break V

The "unambiguity" is that the governor, the UMS and various others plainly regard UMaine as the flagship of the University System. These are (in many cases the elected) representatives of the state and its system of higher education, and if they consider the Orono campus to be the "flagship", then it is. This fact is verifiable. It further appears from what we've seen here that, at least in public discourse, this designation, this choice of reference, is uncontroversial. If it were otherwise one might've seen testy editorials in, I don't know, the Augusta paper about the disrespect being shown their branch of the state university franchise. In the real world, people seem to accept the designation without complaint. It's on the System website, for goodness sake, which administers *all* of the schools. Why would they put it there, and leave it there, if it weren't accurate? (The meaning of "flagship" may be hard to pin down - "ain't it grand" is one interpretation - but that doesn't make the appellation, whatever it may mean, any less verifiable.) Finally if all this isn't enough to establish the objective fact, then just say, "U Maine is considered by the University of Maine System, the governor, and other public officials to be the flagship of the University of Maine System". In my opinion that's an even stronger endorsement of the Orono campus than the simple "is" - but it's true, it's complete, it's not weaselly, it's verifiable and it's NPOV. It's a statement of their opinions, not Wikipedia's. JohnInDC (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with my (edit-conflicted) post by JohnInDC, that the "nuclear option" remains to WP:ASF and make a much stronger statement of fact by substantiation that "U Maine is considered by the University of Maine System, the governor, and other public officials to be the flagship of the University of Maine System" with 6+ references. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I still completely fail to understand how diluting "is" to "is often referred to as" does anything to address the perceived NPOV problems some editors see while simultaneously greatly diminishing the quality of the prose. Imagine, for example:

• "The University of Maine is often referred to as one of a handful of colleges in the United States whose Student Government is incorporated."
• "The University of Maine is generally known to offer seventy-five undergraduate major programs"
• "It is widely accepted as the only institution in Maine ranked as a national university in the U.S. News and World Report annual rankings."

While I'm no objectivist, if there are multiple authoritative and reliable sources calling a spade a spade, why say anything else? Madcoverboy (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think of it as the "nuclear option". It's more just my resigned effort to arrive at language that is, as I said, verifiable, complete, not weaselly, NPOV. The language can be tweaked (I can't find the reference to the governor above but I didn't look too hard) but I think to fairly portray the point the sentence needs to say more than something along the lines of "some describe" or the passive "is referred to". These aren't, after all, just some stray lobstermen who happen to hold the view. The UMS - again, overseer of the entire State university system, with no known a priori incentive to "prefer" one campus over another - should be specifically identified as one that holds this view; and the others, if not specifically identified, should be identified by some suitable collective phrase indicating their association with the government of Maine or the educational system. JohnInDC (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposed wording, JohnInDC. The wording sounds fine to me: "U Maine is considered by the University of Maine System, the governor, and other public officials to be the flagship of the University of Maine System." To try to explain the problem with a plain "is": yes, it may be uncontroversial, but "it's wrong to steal" is also uncontroversial, yet a Wikipedia article should not state it (per WP:ASF) because it's a normative statement, not a fact. You say "This fact is verifiable." I'm sorry: I just don't understand. What fact is verifiable? That the Orono campus is the flagship? What do you mean by that? Do you mean that it's a verifiable fact that it has more students than the other universities? Do you mean it's a verifiable fact that it's been designated as the "flagship" by the legislature? Do you mean it's a verifiable fact that it's referred to as the "flagship" by the university system? (This is verifiable.) Do you mean it's a verifiable fact that the other universities tend to follow its example? Do you mean it's a verifiable fact that it's of higher quality than the other universities? Or what do you mean? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good. I'm glad the language is okay with you. Let's see what the others say.

What's verifiable is that people who are in the position to say - UMS officials, the governor, legislators (whoever's on that list above) - routinely refer to the Orono campus as the flagship. That tells me that it is, indeed, the flagship. To *me*, and this is perhaps our point of departure, a "flagship" is the entity, whether it's a ship or a store or a university, that the operators of the thing wish to present as the exemplar of the class, the standard-bearer. Or maybe in fact something else. It doesn't mean it's better, an actual leader, or anything else. It might be. It might not - as the larger article notes, it might just be the administrative center. All the term means, finally, is that it's offered up as to distinguish a thing or entity by the "fleet operators". I don't know what criteria they used, and it doesn't matter. (Now we're just talking, right? I'm tired of arguing but I'm happy to explain myself some more.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the wording is good, because if we write something that lengthy, someone is going to come along as shorten it to "is", starting the whole thing over again. I also have a problem with listing a few items, because then it sounds more like only the people in the list refer to it that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sarek's proposal to insert the phrase "is referred to as" in the appropriate sentence. In fact, I would have agreed to this proposal without hesitation in March, if it had been made then. I am not now, nor have I ever been wedded to the word "often." That was merely one word in my proposal to try and move this discussion in a more constructive direction. Thank you, Sarek, for proposing the modification. I think it makes the statement NPOV. Thank you also to Coppertwig and hamiltonstone for your comments, which are constructive and helpful. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The only compromises I'm willing to accept are JohnInDC's substantiated sentence or removing it from the lead but keeping the "is". For all this teeth-gnashing about NPOV, suddenly editors are averse to WP:ASF and WP:SUBSTANTIATE? Incredible. When all is said and done, this discussion will most certainly be included on WP:LAME. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think it needs to wait until then, it's been WP:LAME for months. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If your only concern is someone shortening it to "is" again, I'd say let's go with it anyway. Your prediction may not come to pass; or us prose-attributors might not happen to be present; or it might be reverted to the long form anyway. Furthermore, I suggest that if you have such concerns, then you insert a comment in the wikitext deterring such edits. See for example the note near the top of the wikitext of the Che Guevara article, " Note: Please do not change birth date June 14 without discussing on talk page first. "

Madcoverboy: who's averse to ASF or SUBSTANTIATE? Substantiating could mean replacing the "flagship" statement with statements such as that the university has more students than the other universities in the system, etc., if verifiable; that would be kindof OK with me, better than the plain "is the flagship" statement, but I think it's better to mention the flagship status than to leave it out.

JohnInDC: Thanks for the explanation. I think I'm starting to understand better. Perhaps I was trying to figure out whether people meant meaning A or meaning B, when they meant something in between the two, a concept I wasn't familiar with. The word "exemplar" helps. I don't remember ever encountering the terminology of "flagship university" (nor the same idea by any other name) before being involved in this discussion, although I'd heard of "Ivy League". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in spite of Mervyn Emrys's referral to it as such frequently, there is no such official thing as the "Orono Campus" or "the University of Maine at Orono". Title 20-A Section 10901-A states clearly just that the location of the university is Orono, and that its legal name is "University of Maine". No one would refer to (using the same Maine law) to the "University of Southern Maine" as "Portland and Gorham Campus" or "the University of Maine at Portland and Gorham". UMaine is *in* Orono, not *at* Orono. Moreso, it's not really just *in* Orono. As any simple effort on GoogleEarth or Mapquest will show, more of the campus is located in Old Town. The University Forest, the University's Witter Farm, the University Forest, part of the Hilltop dormitory complex is, all of the University Park area is in Old Town. The Darling Center is 125 miles away in Walpole. The blueberry complex is in Cherryfield, many miles to the east. The Climate Change Center's ITASE program is located in *Antarctica*.67.251.33.247 (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(I didn't mean any insult by employing the term "Orono campus" or similar phrasing - it was just to make clear, to those who might not be familiar with the Maine terminology or have the stomach for reading the *entire* talk page, which campus was at issue. JohnInDC (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Most people around here wouldn't blink twice at the phrase "Orono Campus". Don't worry about it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion of RfC

SarekofVulcan concluded the discussion with this edit: [10] which inserts "referred to as" and has edit summary "Changed disputed phrase at "is referred to as", since there are four supporting on talk now". This change has now remained in the article for nearly a month, so it appears to have consensus. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As a point of interest, the designation flagship in a fleet is not an endorsenent of that ship's superiority in any regard. The flagship carries the admiral of the fleet, and therefore flies the admiral's flag. It might be presumed that the admiral would choose a ship superior in some respect, but this is a presumption, not necessarily a fact. As the admiral decides to debark from one ship, and climb aboard another, that second ship becomes the flagship, and immediately flies the admiral's flag, usually under the national flag. The "Air Force One" designation is similar: Air Force One can change as the President, for whatever reason, flies on a different aircraft. If universities and colleges truly followed suit logically, the flagship school would be the location of the office or home of the president of the university system, or some such official. This does not seem to be the case, and, therefore the term lacks definition.

I append this to a discussion long closed because this discussion is referenced on other college and university pages by way of a precedent, since the issue seems to chronically re-emerge. To extend the analogy, the flagship doesn't necessarily lead the way, maybe pointing, or otherwise directing the way, or possibly not. And the flagship is not necessarily the largest, or otherwise the most impressive, though the concept of 'model' or 'prototype' seems to apply, in many cases: hotels, factories, etc. FWIW. rags (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing information

I marked up much of the article with templates describing missing information that every (research) university article should have. In particular, the academics section is devoid of any information on actual academics besides various rankings of dubious importance and weight. While one Carnegie classification is mentioned in the lead, the organization classifies universities along a variety of dimensions nearly all of which merit inclusion in the body of the article. I would also remind editors that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article; any information that appears there should always appear in the body as well. Look to University of Michigan#Academics (or my current pet project Northwestern University#Academics which is structured upon much of UMich content) for an example of a particularly exemplary Academics section. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole book about the history of the institution that is in the public domain and accessible online: [11] I encourage editors to begin fleshing out the history based upon this and other reliable sources rather than parsing verb tenses and modifiers related to UMaine's status as a flagship. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, finally, some real editing. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Other authoritative and reliable sources for content that needs to be added:

• UMaine institutional research office
• Common Data Set
• UMaine faculty handbook
• UMaine course catalog
• Carnegie Classification
• Dept. of Education CollegeNavigator
• NSF R&D expenditures
• NSF research facilities
• NSF state science & engineering profiles
• A variety of information at the Chronicle of Higher Education if you have university/library access: [12] [13]

Git 'er dun. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

UMaine has one of the top ranked forestry schools in the nation, right up there with Yale, Syracuse and Colorado State. Should be some reliable sources out there for this information, tho can't recall where I saw it years ago. Possibly American Forests? "When I have time...." Mervyn Emrys (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect "fun fact"

The section "Location and layout" currently says:

"Situated on Marsh Island, between the Penobscot and Stillwater rivers, the University of Maine is the only Land Grant University in the nation located on an island.[21]

The citation is to a "fun facts" page on the UMaine website. However, the article University of Hawaii at Manoa in the section History says:

"The University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, founded as a land grant college under the terms of the Morrill Act of 1862 for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts in the United States, is the flagship institution of the University of Hawaiʻi system.

Since Manoa is on an island, the fun fact is incorrect and should be deleted. 75.183.119.166 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the line edited to read "in the Continental United States". If you want to add that caveat about the univerity of Hawaii feel free.Data and Lore (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The page will likely be deleted due to it being unambiguously promotional. It's likely copyvio from somewhere, but I have yet to find the source. In any case, the only salvageable part was this:

"Maine Bound Adventure Center is a renovated barn on the University of Maine campus in Orono. This building is a division of the Campus Recreation Department that also operates the Recreation Center. Maine Bound Adventure Center is a student run outdoor education based program that is known for leading trips out into the wilderness to teach participants to take their own trips into the wilderness using the skills they have learned."

I say that we create a section about student life and include 1-2 sentences about this in the section. No more, no less. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Here is the page for the group, so anything we need to pull in can be pulled from the website. There are no RS on the other entry and nothing really to pull over that isn't in the paragraph above, as it was all pretty spammy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on University of Maine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724020101/http://www.umaine.edu/orientation/traditions.htm to http://www.umaine.edu/orientation/traditions.htm#skull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080616155115/http://www.umaine.edu:80/handbook/SOrg/student_government.htm to http://www.umaine.edu/handbook/SOrg/student_government.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528210826/http://www.umaine.edu/umweb/locator/categories.htm to http://www.umaine.edu/umweb/locator/categories.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081001143601/http://www.umaine.edu:80/campusrecreation/facilities/recreationcenter.html to http://www.umaine.edu/campusrecreation/facilities/recreationcenter.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University of Maine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090827023420/http://www.umaine.edu:80/ofm/sustainability/ to http://www.umaine.edu/ofm/sustainability/#greenbike
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528021451/http://www.umaine.edu/psychology/graduate.html to http://www.umaine.edu/psychology/graduate.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528124056/http://www.umaine.edu/campusrecreation/programs/clubs/clubs_about.html to http://www.umaine.edu/campusrecreation/programs/clubs/clubs_about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

heers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University of Maine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091110021242/http://www.umaine.edu:80/psychology/clinical.html to http://www.umaine.edu/psychology/clinical.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100104000012/http://hisoftware.com/case/maine.htm to http://hisoftware.com/case/maine.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091227063711/http://www.eduniversal.com:80/business-school-ranking/country/united-states-of-america/223 to http://www.eduniversal.com/business-school-ranking/country/united-states-of-america/223

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Maine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110612080150/http://www.fcsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=60968&SPID=6637&DB_OEM_ID=11300&ATCLID=619680 to http://www.fcsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=60968&SPID=6637&DB_OEM_ID=11300&ATCLID=619680

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

heers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Maine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111221175647/http://www.phikappaphi.org:80/web/About/About_Phi_Kappa_Phi.html to http://www.phikappaphi.org/web/About/About_Phi_Kappa_Phi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

UMO nickname

UMO is a well established nickname of the University of Maine, see here, here, here, and here just for some examples.--TM 17:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is that big of a deal. But I did originally revert your edit because it was sloppy, had no space. Furthermore I agree with User:ElKevbo that not many people use the acronym. Those books you linked refer to the University when it was named the "University of Maine - Orono" , which UMO made sense. But that was only for a short period of time. The university since 1897 was known as the "University of Maine" until 1968, when the formation of the public university system happened and they renamed the school. But this changed in 1986 and it officially became the University of Maine again. I just don't think it should be listed in the intro, maybe elsewhere in the article but not the first line/part of this article. It just doesn't fit anymore, no one is referring it to UMO this day and age for it to be in the article.--AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether you agree with it or not, many people, organizations and governmental bodies colloquially refer to the University of Maine as UMO. This is demonstrated over and over again in sources.--TM 18:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm disagreeing because I don't see the sources demonstrating that today. How about some recent news articles or sources referencing it as UMO? I just don't ever hear anyone calling it UMO. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I live in Maine and I hear it all of the time. If you don't believe it, google "UMO" and see what takes up nearly the whole first page of results.--TM 19:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt that. But there needs to be "reliable third-party sources". I fully agree that on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMO page it should list the University of Maine, but in the intro of this article and the first sentence, I'd like to see some recent sources on it. And I personally couldn't find any. I'd also like to see what User:Corkythehornetfan thinks since he also reverted and ElKevbo never chimed in. Lastly, I really do respect the recent edits you made on this page, looks like you're making it a better page that's for sure. And your history on Wikipedia speaks for itself you are a great Wikipedia user. Thanks AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the sources provided support the assertions that have been made. ElKevbo (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what sources would demonstrate that. One is a relatively recent college guide which repeatedly refers to the university as UMO. Another is a signed proclamation by a Governor of Maine.--TM 11:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You're edit warring with three different editors and claiming a consensus here in Talk that doesn't exist. WTF? ElKevbo (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup this is just unfortunate. His "recent college guide" that he keeps mentioning is from 2005 over 10 years old AND a new version [14] of the same college guide does not even mention the University of Maine as being UMO. Also failed to provide something recent. 3 editors disagreeing with him, I'm not sure what more needs to be said. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of examples. Here are some more [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], “Over the next few months, we will come up with more ways to collaborate with UMO,” said Swain. He and Hunter will report to Page in July with their ideas and findings.. I could go on but the point has been proven.--TM 14:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I've now provided 11 examples of UMO as a nickname for the University of Maine. Enough already.--TM 14:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Finally some recent sources! You reverted 4 times before you provided anything of substance, I waited 5 days for something like this! So I don't understand the tone. Now although I appreciate the sources are they really enough to warrant it being placed in the intro, especially as the 3rd word in the article? Its mostly trace amounts of the word found and doesn't compare to the 'UMaine' or 'Maine' next to it. -Perhaps we put it after both Umaine and Maine, what do you think. Thanks AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Maine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110618235557/http://marine.rutgers.edu/main/IMCS-People-Details/People-Details-Richard-A.-Lutz.html to http://marine.rutgers.edu/main/IMCS-People-Details/People-Details-Richard-A.-Lutz.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on University of Maine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915161703/http://www.maine.edu/prospective/univ-maine.php to http://www.maine.edu/prospective/univ-maine.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909055056/http://www.cutler.umaine.edu/about/history.htm to http://www.cutler.umaine.edu/about/history.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120801205844/http://www.honors.umaine.edu/community/the-honors-campus/colvin-hall/caroline-colvin/ to http://www.honors.umaine.edu/community/the-honors-campus/colvin-hall/caroline-colvin/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322024504/http://www.umainealumni.com/feed.php?num=6&feed_id=51&news_id=157 to http://www.umainealumni.com/feed.php?num=6&feed_id=51&news_id=157
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308204936/http://www.umaine.edu/hr/newemployees/funfacts.htm to http://www.umaine.edu/hr/newemployees/funfacts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120428133842/http://www.umaine.edu/dining/map.htm to http://www.umaine.edu/dining/map.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101027004432/http://collinscenterforthearts.com/pdf/TechnicalInformation.pdf to http://www.collinscenterforthearts.com/pdf/TechnicalInformation.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121215055935/http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/MaineClimate/EnFootprint.html to http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/MaineClimate/EnFootprint.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531041306/http://honors.umaine.edu/about-the-honors-college/ to http://honors.umaine.edu/about-the-honors-college/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120520171352/http://umaine.edu/about/academic-programs/ to http://www.umaine.edu/about/academic-programs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120602174210/http://gsbs.umaine.edu/programs/neuroscience to http://gsbs.umaine.edu/programs/neuroscience/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629055903/http://umaine.edu/business/about-2/ to http://umaine.edu/business/about-2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422025244/http://www.hockeyeastonline.com/men/teams.php to http://www.hockeyeastonline.com/men/teams.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed

I have fixed the tone issues and made it sound way more neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.219.26 (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Updating University of Maine Research Section

Hello,

The section on the University of Maine page regarding Research is outdated (about 10 years old!). We have compiled updated information to be shared -- but because I am an employee it appears I have a conflict of interest to edit. We want viewers to find the most up-to-date information and resources about the university and its research. This is the updated information that should replace what is there now:

The University of Maine is the state’s only public research university. Classified as a High Research Activity Institution by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, UMaine consistently ranks among the top 20 percent of universities engaged in research.

In 2019, the University of Maine reported a total of $137 million in research expenditures.

Research provides students the opportunity to expand their education beyond the walls of a traditional classroom, allowing world-class research opportunities with the guidance of the university’s exceptional faculty. Research is conducted in every county in Maine, as well as all continents, and all the oceans of the world.

UMaine proudly boasts 15 interdisciplinary research centers and institutes that cover a wide spectrum of areas, including health and well-being, environment, science and engineering, and education.

Advanced Structures and Composites Center The University of Maine’s Advanced Structures and Composites Center, founded in 1996, is a world-leading, interdisciplinary center for research, education, and economic development, encompassing material sciences, manufacturing, and the engineering of composites and structures. The Center is housed in a 100,000 ft2 ISO 17025-accredited testing facility with fully equipped, integrated laboratories to develop and test durable, lightweight, corrosion-resistant material solutions for a wide variety of industries. A University of Maine signature research area for Advanced Materials for Infrastructure and Energy, the UMaine Composites Center focuses on developing next-generation solutions that capitalize on Maine’s vast natural resources to address the most pressing infrastructure and energy-related challenges.

Advanced Manufacturing Center The Advanced Manufacturing Center (AMC) is an applied manufacturing research facility that works directly with public and private sector clients to advance manufacturing technologies in the state of Maine. The AMC's 30,000 ft2 facility is home to a host of CNC machines, additive metal manufacturing capabilities, and a full suite of materials testing equipment.

Aquaculture Research Institute Founded in 2009, the Aquaculture Research Institute (ARI) brings together researchers and faculty from multiple disciplines at UMaine, key industry partners, and applied R&D opportunities, to enable innovation within UMaine’s aquaculture research.

Center for Community Inclusion and Disability Studies The University of Maine Center for Community Inclusion and Disability Studies (CCIDS) is Maine’s University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD). Established in 1992, the Center works closely with people with disabilities, families, state and local government agencies, community providers and others on projects providing training, technical assistance, service, research, and information sharing. There are currently 67 UCEDDs; at least one in every U.S. state and territory.

Center for Research on Sustainable Forests The Center for Research on Sustainable Forests (CRSF) was founded in 2006 to build on a rich history of leading forest research and to enhance the understanding of Maine’s forest resources. The CRSF is currently developing, integrating, and applying emerging geospatial technologies and informatics methods to address current and future issues to support the sustainable management of the region’s natural resources.

Center for Undergraduate Research The Center for Undergraduate Research (CUGR) has facilitated faculty-mentored research and creative activities for undergraduate students across all academic disciplines since its inception in 2008.

Center on Aging The Center on Aging promotes and facilitates activities on aging in the areas of education, research and evaluation, and community service to maximize the quality of life of older citizens and their families in Maine and beyond.

Climate Change Institute The Climate Change Institute (CCI) is a global leader in interdisciplinary climate change research, conducts climate change research expeditions throughout the world, and both produces and shares software that allows researchers and the public to understand climate change.

Forest Bioproducts Research Institute The Forest Bioproducts Research Institute (FBRI) was created in 2006 with the mission to advance the understanding of the scientific underpinnings, system behavior and policy implications for the production of forest-based bioproducts as well as to provide and promote technology validation and partnerships that will meet societal needs for materials, chemicals and fuels in an economically and ecologically sustainable manner.

Frontier Institute for Research in Sensor Technologies Founded in 1980, the Frontier Institute for Research in Sensor Technologies (FIRST) has been active in carrying out research, teaching, and outreach activities in the broad area of surfaces and interfaces, thin films, microelectronic devices, sensor technology, and nanotechnology. A wide variety of on-going activities span the range from fundamental research to applied development to technology transfer.

Innovative Media Research and Commercialization Center The Innovative Media, Research and Commercialization Center (IMRC Center), is a 15,000+ square foot facility provides comfortable, state of the art prototyping facilities, audio and video production spaces, a resource library, performance and installation spaces, classrooms, and offices.

Maine Center for Research in STEM Education The Maine Center for Research in STEM Education (RiSE Center) is an interdisciplinary center organized to conduct research, graduate education, professional development, and to build community partnerships focused on improving the research and research-based practice of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels of instruction. Members of the RiSE Center include faculty, staff, and graduate students engaged in education research across multiple STEM departments and the College of Education at the University of Maine. More information about the RiSE Center’s research, partnerships including the Maine STEM Partnership, and current projects and programs including a Master of Science in Teaching program that prepares STEM majors for careers in teaching, can be found on the RiSE website.

Maine Sea Grant The University of Maine has been participating in the Sea Grant Program since 1971 and received full National Sea Grant College status in 2004. It is one of 34 NOAA Sea Grant programs operating throughout the coastal and Great Lakes states, and it is a federal-state partnership that supports research, outreach and education. Maine Sea Grant and the University of Maine Cooperative Extension partner to form the Marine Extension Team, which works on issues of concern to Maine’s coastal communities.

Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center Since its founding in 1989, the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center has engaged in applied public policy research and community engagement with the goal of improving the quality of public discourse grounded in civility and a willingness to engage respectfully across political, social, and cultural differences. The MCS Policy Center’s dedication to this nonpartisan mission advances relationships among policymakers, community leaders, and the students, faculty, and staff of the University of Maine System.

Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions Created in 2014, the Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions is widely recognized for stakeholder-engaged, solutions-driven, interdisciplinary research to improve human well-being while protecting the environment. In collaboration with diverse stakeholders, the Mitchell Center links knowledge with action to create a brighter economic, social and environmental future in and beyond Maine.

Maine Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research In addition to the 15 interdisciplinary research centers and institutes, the Maine Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) develops partnerships between the state’s higher education institutions, industry, government and others to effect lasting improvements in their R&D infrastructure, capacity and national competitiveness.

In 2019, the NSF EPSCoR program awarded a five-year, $20 million grant for the Maine-eDNA initiative – a state-wide, multi-institutional initiative establishing Maine as a national leader in environmental monitoring, ecological understanding and sustainability of coastal ecosystems through research, education, and outreach.

ChristelmPeters (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC) @ElKevbo

Opinion Found in 1907 Legislative Record

The promise of training the farmer's sons in scientific knowledge was never honored, as recorded this legislative document from 1907

The Committee made an elaborate report in 1897 to the sixty eighth legislature. The report declared the "New England Idea" in education had meant free public schools and a compulsory degree of attendance, with higher education and professional training at the cost of the individual rather than the state; that consequently, public opinion was divided in 1862 as to the expediency of accepting the federal grant under imposed conditions: that it would not have been accepted but for the belief which was, on the whole, entertained, that the proposed college would give the industrial classes a scientific knowledge which would make farming attractive and profitable and elevate both farming and the mechanic arts to the plane of other pursuits and professions by filling their ranks with educated men" That the college owes especially its existence to the expectation that scientific farming would be promoted by the education of farmer's sons, that expectation has not been realized, that the college was in its practical workings a school of science and technology"