Talk:University of Miami/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Miami University

Wow, folks. So by "the disambiguation is complete", what y'all are really saying is "our goal to inflate the importance of our school at the expense of Miami University is complete." There's a reason Miami University is sometimes called "Miami (OH)", and it's closely related to the reason the University of Miami is sometimes called "Miami (FL)". It would be nice if we could explore that reason in this article, just as we are on the article about the much older institution in Oxford, Ohio. -- SwissCelt 19:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that you are biased towards your school, and I have a bias towards my own. Miami University has been around since the 1800s, the University of Miami has been around since the 1920s. The President of the University of Miami is a Miami University graduate. More people associate "Miami" and "University" with the Floridian school because it's named after the city, which in turn is named after the Native American tribe (I think that's what the city is named after) that the Ohio school is named for. It's just a lot of bad faith when its an edit war that I apologize that I contributed in. Please just leave the Miami U/U Miami dispute off of Wikipedia. Ryūlóng 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, my school is Bowling Green State University... MU's rival. But thank you for your kind words. I really don't have anything against the University of Miami. I just wish the UofM would stop stealing their elder brother's thunder. The two schools are quite notable enough on their own merits. -- SwissCelt 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Why bother? When I see MUoOH have two heisman trophy winning QBs, five national championships, a stellar baseball program (produced ARod), a music program that put out Gloria Estefan, excellent law and business schools, etc. ad infinitum, then we'll talk. Until then, we'll take for granted that Miami University of Ohio sucks worse than Ohio State, and that the disambiguation (overinflating the importance of that community college in the Ohio Territory) is for all intents and purposes complete. ExplorerCDT 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) (Not a UM graduate).
  • Hmm, well, most people care about your "stellar baseball program" about as much as they care about Miami University's equally stellar hockey program. As for football creds, gee, only five national championships? MU alum Woody Hayes did that all by himself... and that's before you count the championships earned by Bo Schembechler, Ara Parseghian, and Jim Tressel. Oh, yes, that's right: The same Jim Tressel who led Ohio State over your school for the national title started his coaching career at the Cradle of Coaches, Miami University. By the way, while your Heisman trophy winners were sitting at home, Miami University alum Ben Roethlisberger was out winning the Super Bowl. Howzat? Oh, I should add that MU is undefeated against the University of Florida in bowl games... and yes, the two schools did actually meet in a bowl, in 1974. I hear the UofM managed to do that in 2001... congratulations.
  • How many national championships has Miami's hockey team won? I think ZERO. Athletically Miami U can hardly compete with U of Miami. As for academics, according to USNEWS, U of Miami rules too. (Drew1830 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC))
And that's before we start talking academics. How many US Presidents did your "excellent law school" graduate? MU has one. How many people on Forbes' list of the world's richest people came from your business school? MU has several. Your president is an MU alum. Ready to talk yet? -- SwissCelt 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Miami University alum Ben Roethlisberger was out winning the Super Bowl. So you say? It seems he's still playing too much football without a helmet, just on a motorcycle. Is that the type of idiot you guys graduate? Benjamin Harrison? That's what you're proud of? Geesh, he couldn't even get reëlected. Miami University of Ohio is so pathetic you need to buttress your arguments with Michigan, Ohio State people. It seems Miami University people are only successful when they go to other schools, and they only seem to bolster the rep of those schools, since even though they may have a connection with Miami University, it's the first I've heard of it. As to the UFlorida jokes...Gators suck, but not as bad as Miami University. They're so much of a footnote, they might as well accept their spot right up there with the "also rans" since they are and will forever be nothing more than an afterthought on Saturdays in the Autumn. ExplorerCDT 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Several points: 1) Miami University couldn't give two rats asses about sports relative to its dedication to its undergraduate programs (in which 75-80% of available funds are allocated). The fact that our university harbored an underrated first round QB that went on to win a Superbowl makes a sports machine school like yours look pathetic when your players are cropped off the crime ridden streets and your players are not there for an education but instead to throw a ball.

2) Miami University was authorized by George Washington and the Congress in the early days of our country. Suntan U. was founded by a bunch of sunburned assholes who wanted to find something to do other than sell drugs and build retirement communities.

3) Take a look at the famous alumni from Miami University compared to Miami of Florida. 80 to 90 percent of your famous alumni are entertainers or athletes. That sounds about right... Now go take a look at the Miami Univ. alum.

4) Miami's hockey team was #1 i the country last year. Miami's football team was #10 tied with Suntan U. a couple years ago. Our syncronized skating team is #4 in the world this year. I'm not saying Miami University is an Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, but what I am saying is that when people I've met all over the country mention Miami University, the first thing they say is 'oh, i know several people that went there, it's a great school and beautiful campus'. They don't mention the criminals/football players or that they have great nightclubs, old people, and drug dealers.

MiamiU lost to BC in the first round of the NCAA tournament last year. That's hardly "#1 in the country". In any case, I think this debate has run its course. I've been collaborating with Ryūlóng and the rest of this project's editors to improve this article, which after all is our purpose in being here. So long as Wikipedia recognizes both schools (which it does), I'm happy. -- SwissCelt 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (a BG alum)


Wow, really? Alex Rodriguez never went to UofM? I honestly can say I didn't know that; I rather assumed he did. (Okay, given my previous edits vis a vis Miami University I can understand how some might think I'm trying to rub this into 'Canes fans' faces, but I'm a bit shocked to learn this.) -- SwissCelt 20:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It says in his article that he was not part of the UM Baseball (or football) teams, and there's no other mention of UMiami in the article. I could be entirely wrong, but it does not appear to be correct. Ryūlóng 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to double check... He basically bought the baseball field o_O? Ryūlóng 20:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This page states that A-Rod was drafted to the Mariners before he could even become a student? Ryūlóng 20:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
He was admitted to the university and then was recruited into the MLB before he played the first game. Under MLB rules, once they play the first game as freshmen, they become illegible for draft purposes, so Seattle got there and found him before he even started playing. So he was admitted but never really attended the university--and never played on the UM baseball team. MiamiDolphins3 04:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Legend has it he was on his way to class when his agent notified him that the Mariners had upped their offer. (Drew1830 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC))


I noticed there was an edit stating that they should limit the alumni who went on to the NFL to reflect only the real famous of them...that I don't think is a good idea. Instead, you should consider, as we did with the large list of Rutgers University alumni (which we combined with the faculty list for a "people" list), making a separate article entitled "List of notable University of Miami alumni." Does not winning the super bowl, or not having the highest passing yards for a given season mean that you're less a professional football player than one who has? Geesh, no one remembers Ozzie Nelson, and today in the days of James Gandolfini, Calista Flockhart and Kristin Davis we don't take him off the Rutgers alumni list because of it. —ExplorerCDT 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We have our very comprehensive NFL list on the Miami Hurricanes football page, and it includes probably over 100 players. The criteria we've been applying to the main page is that they be NFL starters, first round draft picks, Heisman winners, etc. That seems to work well and keeps the list at a reasonable number, especially since some UM grads have gone on to be some of the biggest names in NFL history and many others made the NFL and never even played. I think our general idea is to include about the top 20 or so NFL names, and I think we've done a pretty good job in capturing that. And then the football page, which is linked from the main page, has the comprehensive list for those interested, similar to the list you suggested.MiamiDolphins3 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Alma Mater lyrics

If an institution's Alma Mater is of sufficient age that it has passed into the public domain, I'm pretty sure that it is safe to be published in Wikipedia. However, I doubt that UMiami's Alma Mater is that old. See Copyright, Wikipedia:Public Domain. -- SwissCelt 11:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I see alma mater lyrics on many other university pages, and I thought their inclusion was sort of neat. Unless there is some copyright or wikipedia policy against it, and I don't think there is, I'd vote for putting it back in. MiamiDolphins3 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to have it back in, too. But I think UMiami's Alma Mater is still under copyright. Anyone able to run this down for us? -- SwissCelt 04:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Can this information be found here [1]? LostLucidity (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The university is not old enough for its alma mater to be released under the public domain. That's the plain truth about this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It may be plain to you, but not to me. Knowing when it published, if it had to be renewed, or when it may expire would be helpful in explaining why it's not in public domain. Thanks! LostLucidity (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
They are published on the school's own website ... does that count as public domain? see:,1770,2472-1;2671-3,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not count as public domain. The school still owns the copyrights to the alma mater at this point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

USN&WR ranking

1. The statement "The University of Miami has been routinely ranked among the top tier..." is a factual assertion that must be supported by a citation. It is entirely insufficient to simply link to the Wikipedia article about the USN&WR rankings.

No, not really. Such a citation would almost certainly require a footnote for every year, and that's not necessary, provided the statement is commonly agreed to be true. UM has been ranked in the 50 to 60 range of this list for many consecutive years. MiamiDolphins3 15:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but what part of WP:Verifiability is unclear? This is a core policy of Wikipedia and it's not negotiable. "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
In addition to ignoring facts and WP:V, you're also in violation of the 3 Revert Rule. I caution you to not attempt to own this article and ask that you observe Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --ElKevbo 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

2. It is entirely incorrect to state that UM is ranked "54 best [in the nation]." USN&WR is clear in that they "first assign schools to a group of their peers" and then proceed to rank them. Therefore any USN&WR ranking must be qualified by the peer group among which the ranking is valid. As a minor point, I also object to describing this ranking as "54th best" as best is POV and the shortcomings of and objections to the USN&WR methodology are well-known and widespread. --ElKevbo 02:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to work on finding the ranking information, to at least substantiate the first claim, and I agree on the second now. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Good deal. The first claim is most likely substantiated by UM propaganda - admissions info, press release, etc. if it's documented anywhere. It's unlikely to be documented by USN&WR. --ElKevbo 02:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It is the 54th best in the nation. The excluded colleges are liberal arts colleges that do not offer a full range of academic programs. No university in the U.S. is excluded from the ranking, so the statement that it is the 54th best among U.S.-based universities is entirely accurate. MiamiDolphins3 15:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Please support your assertion with citations or references from the USN&WR methodology. I've already pointed out above how the institutions are first separated into peer groups and then ranked. The quote above is a cut-n-paste from their methodology and directly contradicts your assertion. Your evidence?
Furthermore, your assertion that "there is no such thing as a national university" is false. I placed the phrase in quotes as it is indeed the peer group into which USN&WR places UM and it is among those institutions that it is ranked. --ElKevbo 18:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I know we have to back up statements with references, but this is getting disruptive. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 17:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive to who? I merely would like to see an objective, neutral article on the University of Miami rather than a brochure filled with unsubstantiated statements, biased opinions and a general lack of neutrality. All my changes are in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines especially regarding the reduction of Academic Boosterism.
I didn't add those but I certainly don't object to them. I do object to your removing them without providing the requested citations. They're factual assertions which must be supported by citations from reliable sources. --ElKevbo 18:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
These recent edits closely reflect ones made by the same IP months ago. He or she fought with long-standing editors for months, then disappeared, and now reappeared. The edits were disruptive and combative then, as they are now. The page is accurate. Additional footnotes might be helpful, probably aren't necessary but could be worked in. MiamiDolphins3 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Who are the "long-standing editors?" My edits are not disruptive or combative. I would like to see a higher quality article for the University of Miami. Until you provide sources for and address the above questions from ElKevbo, I will continue to ask for sources and make edits to inaccurate or unsubstantiated statements.
Your IP matches the person who made all the controversial, combative edits regarding the superiority of Miami University several months ago. Please refrain from making further revisions to the page. List anything in the article the you consider factually incorrect and it can be considered here. MiamiDolphins3 20:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with the anonymous user and ElKevbo. I don't agree that the anonymous' contributions are combative but instead are constructive and valid. This article is not up Wiki standards and needs to be cleaned up. Anonymous' contributions are a start. Seattlelite
Tagging nearly every section with {{fact}} is a bit disruptive. This has been discussed with regular editors above and in the archives. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I read through the history and the requests for citations are valid. Rather than delete these requests for sources, you should cite these sources or delete the statement. That is official Wikipedia policy WP:Verifiability. It can be argued that your reversions are disruptive (I am not saying that you are), so it is not fair to say who is or is not disruptive, combative or controversial. Seattlelite 21:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have been going about searching for refs to rankings, but I will have to wait on MiamiDolphins3 to go searching for the sports stuff. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Assert facts, not opinions. Any more ornamentation than reporting "University of Miami is ranked X among National Universities by U.S. News and World Report in 2009" is manifestly non-neutral. In fact, you could just remove the rankings section and summarize all the pertinent information by implementing Infobox US University Ranking if one was truly committed to neutrality and verifiability since it's all built in. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic Rankings

See Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism I understand that alumni and fans of this fine university want to put this school in a fine light but Wikipedia should be a neutral source of information, not a brochure or propoganda piece.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

It's all referenced. Some references are just harder to find than others, and most are references in linked articles or the next sentence or so.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon editor

To the anonomyous editor: It would be much more helpful and cooperative if you would add citations where you feel they are needed, as opposed to slapping reference requests on every other sentence. MiamiDolphins3 18:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be more helpful but the responsibility of supporting an assertion with a citation doesn't fall upon the reader or random Wikipedia editor. I, for one, appreciate the suggestions and help given to us by anonymous editors even when we disagree with them. --ElKevbo 19:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


I think the parenthetical statement that some football players didn't receive their degree should be removed. Many of the others also didn't receive their degree and it gives the impression that the rest of them did.Bperk420 22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If they didn't graduate, it should be noted in the format currently used. A long time ago, I tried to remove non-graduates, thinking they weren't technically "alumni", but someone pointed out (correctly, it turns out) that they do not need to be graduates to be considered "alumni". However, there is the parenthesis format to note if they didn't graduate, which can and should be used in all cases. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MiamiDolphins3 (talkcontribs) 15:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

The Alumni section dominates this article. For a few examples of alumni subpages, see List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, List of Cornell University people, etc. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The alumni section is fine and is, in fact, maybe the most interesting and valuable part of the article. Would strongly suggest keeping it as is, at least for now, unless it grew too much larger. MiamiDolphins3 00:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "Current NFL players" section: it's unfortunate that football players are considered notable and worthy of inclusion simply because they spend their lives playing sports while the names of artists, scientists, teachers, civil servants, and businessmen associated with the university must meet a higher standard of notoriety. --Do go be man 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The simple rule of inclusion is as follows: The individual has an article on Wikipedia, they have passed the following guideline: Notability of people. That means that if they have an article and they are alumni, they get listed here. I am sure that there are several other people who have attended the University of Miami that are not athletes; it is just that we do not have articles on them on Wikipedia. The school of arts and sciences is the largest here on campus, with most students biology majors going for pre-med. If one of them becomes a doctor who finds the cure for cancer, then they'll be listed here. But a normal pediatrician or surgeon is not going to get an article.—Ryūlóng () 00:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Law & Politics Alumni

With the addition of Patricia Ireland to the alumni section, I wonder: Should she be recategorized in the field of politics? Or perhaps we should merge the two fields, as politicians are often renowned lawyers and vice versa? -- SwissCelt 10:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out if she counts as being a School of Law grad :/ Miamidolphins will figure it out.—Ryūlóng () 10:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. Aren't recipients of graduate degrees considered alumni? -- SwissCelt 03:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I placed her on the School of Law page since her bio said she went to University of Tennessee and then UM School of Law. I think this is most appropriate but I don't feel too strongly about it. MiamiDolphins3 13:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I readded her, per SwissCelt's observation. MiamiDolphins3 02:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

The following changes need to be made; I'll add more as I think of them.

Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A few other comments:

  • Create a campus section, perhaps including the points of interest.
  • Expand the lead, as per WP:LEAD
  • Sections in rankings seem too small and should be condensed into a single paragraph

Danski14 03:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no effort being put forth to comply with our recommendations. If I don't see some action soon, I'm going to go ahead and fail it. Besides, the amount of work needed to bring this article to GA status will take a long, long time. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Failing it now. You're welcome to reapply once you've made some effort to solve those problems. I also recommend that you get a peer review. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I came back and enacted most of my recommendations. The article now appears to be very small in terms of actual content, and would still probably not merit a GA. Keep trying, you'll get there... eventually. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: grad level programs

It is highly misleading to suggest that U.M. "has three graduate-level schools:". I can say this authoritatively, since I am a graduate student, and am enrolled in neither the School of Law, nor the School of Medicine, nor RSMAS. I have attempted to make the appropriate changes in the past, but an editor reverted my changes, even though they were referenced.

I will try again, and please check out this page for a list of all colleges/schools with graduate level degrees. This page will never reach GA if editors blithely remove properly cited and accurate information, hello how's your family! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

I am an undergrad and I know that there are only three specific schools for graduate study. I know that there is a school for Continuing Studies, but there are no specific institutions set up for Nursing, Architecture, etc. as there are for Law, Medicine, and Oceanography.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I see nine schools offering graduate degrees listed at Colleges and Schools:

  • Architecture
  • Business Administration
  • Communication
  • Education
  • Law
  • Medicine
  • Music
  • Nursing and Health Studies
  • Marine and Atmospheric Science

The Graduate School lists 10 disciplines.

Where does "has three graduate-level schools" come from? --Do go be man 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Med School, Law School, and RSMAS being the big ones that have their own buildings and whatnot.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This concept initially seemed minor to me and maybe I'm missing the context, however, I think that may have a valid point. I hold a cross discipline graduate degree from UM that does not represent the three cited. My schools have buildings and good enrollment too. --Do go be man 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryūlóng, this is really not a big deal, but I would like to understand the distinction you feel necessary about the three affiliate graduate schools. Classifying them as such sounds like to me that they are not really a part of UM or somehow superior to the other schools and colleges. I might agree with you, but for now I just don't understand it. --Do go be man 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Miller School of Medicine, the School of Law, and RSMAS are unique entities that affiliate themselves with UM. They are specialized graduate schools based off of the pre-med, pre-law, and marine science programs within Arts and Sciences. Graduate level courses in areas such as Engineering, Music, Education, etc. are still under the aegis of the University of Miami's 8 academic divisions. While they exist as graduate programs, they are not a "grad school" perse (in my own knowledge). I know that there are doctorate programs in every academic division, but the Law School, Med School, and Marine School have their own programs that are independent of UM.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryūlóng, like I said, this is not really that big a deal. The way things stand, however, it seems misleading to either indicate that the three schools are not really part of UM or that they are somehow better than the rest. As the documenting the distinction may make that clearer, I added a citation needed tag. I searched several UM web sites and could locate that distinction. --Do go be man 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just represent the same equality between schools that the UM sites do? You have me curious as to why the distinction is important to you even though it apparently can't be quantified or cited. --Do go be man 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It exists, I know that much. Also, they have articles—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Being a relatively new contributor, I appreciate the opportunity to learn. How does your last reply comply with the reasons for citing sources? --Do go be man 02:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. That's why I had reworded the portion completely to comply with what information is known. Additionally, RSMAS is solely a graduate school. However, practically all of the professors there also teach on the Coral Gables campus as part of the Marine Science department.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Known As

I've been part of the University of Miami community since 1968. I've heard it called University of Miami, UM, Miami of Florida, Suntan U, the Cardboard College, but never The U. Out of state TV and other media often refer to Miami of Florida. As there was a request to better source "Miami of Florida", perhaps the a.k.a.s should be removed unless they can be documented. --Do go be man 22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a student now and it's been referred to as "the U" on campus and in local media (wait a few months for football season). Such trivial things cannot be sourced accurately (and there is no way that you cannot say that something like "University of North Carolina" is never abbreviated as "UNC"). Despite it being taken for granted, I see this as a way to get your way in an argument, in my eyes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected concerning sourcing. However, ESPN uses "Miami (FL)" and not "Miami of Florida".—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, comments such as "not really" and "don't be anal with 'no source, can't have it'" are not especially useful or encouraging to other contributors. Rejecting the "Miami of Florida" addition in that manner was inappropriate. Of course, such trivial things are difficult to document accurately. Frankly, having them cited is pretty silly though that seemed to be required to show the a.k.a. was as valid as the better known aliases. You may be a student there now, but please remember that your knowledge of UM is limited and not exclusively authoritative. --Do go be man 04:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

From a quick LexisNexis search: When old uniforms are new. (2005, Oct 29). St. Petersburg Times, p. 4C; George, J. & Mohammed, M.A. Athlete is killed outside his home. (2007, April 26). St. Petersburg Times, p. 3B.--droptone (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Custodial workers' strike

Why is this listed so prominently? This is an article about the University of Miami. The workers' strike is a footnote in the history of this University. Apparently it's a scared cow for somebody because they won't let me delete the paragraph and instead include a link at the bottom for the main article. Drew1830 00:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a notable instance in the recent history of the University. I would prefer if you did not refer to such items in an incivil fashion. If it's sourceable (which it is) then it should be included to improve this article.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Then let's build a "recent events" section near the bottom for issues like this. It's not uncivil to put this issue in proper perspective. I'm all for making the article better. I think eliminating extraneous paragraphs and adding pertinent information about the school makes it better. Drew1830 03:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've changed my mind.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Another editor has twice removed from this article a sentence stating: "The current president of UM is former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala."

I have tried to restore the sentence as it is interesting and relevant. Obviously this other editor disagrees with me but I don't know where the disagreement lies. Is the problem that sentence isn't directly sourced? Is it misplaced?

Please chime in. I feel strongly that this sentence should be in the article and one other editor disagrees so we need input from other editors (in addition to substantive input from Drew1830. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I just thought it was redundant given that the History section mentioned her as the President in the final paragraph. I'm open to leaving it in if that's what the consensus is. Drew1830 (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok. It would have been very helpful if you had simply explained that in the edit summary.
I don't feel strongly that the info belongs in one of these two sections nor do I feel strongly that it's bad to repeat it. Thought? --ElKevbo (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be improved

This article should be seriously improved. It's disorganized, it's missing better images of the campus, and it's not what it could be. UM has a lot to offer and this article doesn't show it. This coming from a FIU Golden Panther. This article needs to be improved. --Comayagua99 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Miami Maniac

Should information about the Miami Maniac be added? If so, please help out and add.Umiami09 (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"The U"

I am sure that students everywhere use phrases like "I am going to school now" or "I am heading toward campus." But that does not mean that every college in American would include "school" and "campus" in the list of its popular names. If a student were travelling to another city and was asked "where do you attend?" that would not be an answer. Racepacket (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please distinguish between the University's logo which is based on the letter U with a unique typeface and color scheme and the generic abbreviation for the word "university." Racepacket (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that everyone refers to the University as "it", but only when the antecedent is understood, but we would not list "It" as a commonly known name for the University. Please provide a reference from a non-local media, reliable source that indicates that "The U" is nationally-recognized as referring to the University of Miami. Please evalute the following counter examples of the use of "The U": [2], [3], [4], "Making voluntary contributions to the U is central..." and The U - University of Misssouri student radio station. Let's move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. Racepacket (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if other editors would either respond here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities seeking consensus before making further edits on this issue. The reference cited does not support the proposition that "the U" is acknowledged broadly to refer uniquely to the University of Miami. In fact, that website uses the split-U logo to convey its meaning, and feels compelled to offer a statement explaining the University of Miami context. Also note that athletic websites are not indicative of general language use but are rather prone to cutesy terms and "insider" abbreviations. While ESPN may be funding, the website for the general public does not use "The U" to refer to the University of Miami. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This thread is over two years old Racepacket, the issue was easily resolved over two years ago when reliable sources were found. I don't know why but you've posted three times suggesting that this issue was in no way resolved. This was an issue with reliable sourcing. ESPN's official website for tracking the sports teams of the University of Miami "" is the ultimate reliable source to go by an official nickname for the university.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
We get it; you disagree with this nickname. It might be helpful if you could back off for a bit and let others comment. :)
Personally, I'm not entirely convinced by your arguments, particularly your dismissal of athletics. I have heard "The U" used as a nickname for several years and I only lived in Florida for a few years (and in the panhandle so it doesn't really count). But of course it would be beneficial of other editors could add their viewpoints! --ElKevbo (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. And there is nothing here that says the University of Miami is the only university that is referred to as "The U". I went to "The U" described by this article. My brother is going to a different school called "The U". I'm sure other people have gone to various schools referred to as "The U". There is simply no reason to disregard the fact that UMiami is referred to as "The U" just because other universities go by the name, particularly when there is a reliable source on the article and has been on the article. Stop edit warring and allow other people to discuss things because all of your edits were made before either I or Miamidolphins or ElKevbo had the chance to interject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I also see that the link to DefenseLink News Article: America Supports You: University of Miami ‘Adopts’ Sailors in Iraq had been removed by Racepacket, when the University of Miami is referred to as "The U" twice in the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not see any legitimate justification for removing the cited note that the university has the nickname "The U". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the repetitive postings above, but each was in response to an edit made without any response to the prior postings. The issue was raised on Sept. 2 and each of my edits pointed to the discussion page (which until today were summarily rv'ed without comment.) I welcome other views and hope that more people from Wikiproject Universities weigh in so we can develop a Wikipedia-wide approach to handling such "common names." If "The U" can be acceptably listed as a common name for dozens of schools, why do it, because it is meaningless. Racepacket (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Using this particular article as a case study is in my opinion disrupting the project to make a point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far but this sure seems like a tempest in a teapot. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Please observe WP:POINT as well as WP:OWN. Let's finish the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities and then implement it on all University articles. (I have not added "campus", "school" and "it" to the article as nicknames, repeatedly adding "The U" is definitely WP:POINT.) Thanks! Racepacket (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
No. Removing "The U" is the violation of WP:POINT when various other editors have disagreed with the removal when you are attempting to set a precedent on all articles concerning universities and their aliases. Your removal of one particular name when there are reliable sources that show its use is vandalism at best.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Your arguments are getting poorer and poorer. The University of Miami has been shown to be referred to as "UM", "Miami (FL)", "Miami of Florida", and "The U". Just because there are other universities that can be referred to as "The U" does not mean that this particular article should not be allowed to say that this particular university is referred to as "The U".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's avoid ad hominem arguments and stick to the merits. There is nothing in either of the two websites that were offered that show that "The U" is commonly understood to mean the University of Miami. Both are careful to layout the University of Miami context and obviously do not assume that reader will automatically know that "The U" means the University of Miami without being told. English Wikipedia is intended to serve the entire English-speaking world, not just South Florida. There is a good chance that a person siting in DC or NYC will know what "UNC" or "UNLV" mean, but they will never guess that "The U" means the University of Miami. Even if you ask a Florida resident, they would have to guess between the University of Miami and the University of Florida. Similarly, a university named "Miami" could mean the University of Miami or Miami University, which is in Ohio. If you have any reliable, non-local, secondary source indicating that "The U" is widely understood to mean the University of Miami, I will certainly support keeping it in the article. But please do not add a footnote if the reference does not support it. (If you understood the abbreviations in this paragraph, then you will understand why "The U" is not the equal of DC, NYC, UNC or UNLV.) Racepacket (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars and ad hominen arguments are certainly a waste of time. Does it matter if the University of Miami is uniquely known as anything to be considered "known as"? In my days of the 60s through the 80s, we were best known as "Suntan U", but more politely as "UM". If we were discussing "MIT", "UNC", or "UCLA", perhaps unique "known as" would be relevant. The fact that the University of Miami at Coral Gables is known as "The U" is established, we just can't say that it's "uniquely known as". There's history to be considered as well that I would prefer be included, but don't push out of respect for fellow grads. The U is also known as "Suntan U" and "The Cardboard College". If "The U" is really that important, try getting some sources from a Google search such as +"The U " +university then continue to talk it out rather than edit war. Do go be man (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but the problem is that the current sentence means very different things to different readers. Here are some options:

a) delete all common names
b) (sometimes abbreviated as UM,[2] or Miami of Florida,[3] or The U[4][5][6][7])
c) (locally and colloquially referred to as UM,[2] or Miami of Florida,[3] or The U[4][5][6][7])
d) (commonly referred to as Miami of Florida,[3] and occassionally abbreviated as s UM,[2] or The U[4][5][6][7])
e) (commonly referred to as UM,[2] or Miami of Florida)[3]
f) (commonly referred to as Miami of Florida,[3])
or any of the above without the footnotes, because none of the footnotes really support the text. In my mind, "commonly referred to as" calls forth the type of anlysis used in trademark law that measures when a significant part of the general public associates "The U" with the "University of Miami." People are asked "What word comes to mind when I say Apple." A large number of people will say "Computer" or "iPod" rather than fruit, because it is a "strong" trademark with a secondary meaning. "Otis" will have most people saying "elevator." But if you ask "The U" , noone outside of Miami will answer "University of Miami." We need some test to see what (if anything) should be listed. The words "campus", "school", "it" and "The U" can all mean the University of Miami in certain contexts, but that is not the generally accepted secondary meaning. We are making a general statement here for the entire English-speaking part of the world, not for the undergraduate dorms on the campus. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The context in which this reference to "The U" and other known as references is this article about the University of Miami at Coral Gables, Florida. I would hope that readers would understand that and not confuse the reference. In an article about the Andy Griffith Show, I would hope readers might think about the town drunk without assuming the town elevator routinely locked himself in a cell to sleep off his latest bender. Racepacket, I'm wondering about your actual knowledge and experience with UM a.k.a. The U a.k.a. Suntan U. a.k.a. The Cardboard College. Shifting into Socialogy mode, why is this so important? Unless you hold a copyright on it as a tradename, it doesn't seem worth the energy. I was part of the Miami community for more than 20 years. I also objected to "known as The U" until I saw that it is referred that way outside my experience. The fact we got to the point of adding citations went overboard, but the names are valid and cited. Do go be man (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Racepacket's suggestions here have been clearly proven to be pointless at WT:UNI. "The U" and "UM" are not unique names to this school, but that certainly does not mean that the names should be eliminated entirely. There are enough references to support that "UM", "The U", and "Miami of Florida" are possible alternate names for the University of Miami, just like "UNC" is an alternate name for the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, "NC State" for North Carolina State University, "SUNY" for any State University of New York school, etc. Your obsession over these seven letters on this page is getting tiresome.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow. What makes you think that the deletion of "The U" has proven to be pointless? When I read all of this discussion, I see that trying to document nicknames or slang that is limited geographically or demographically is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Racepacket (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You have been the only person to have suggested anything remotely like this in the several years since the content has been in the article. I've seen more content removed than added to this article since you began editing it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You have correctly pointed out that the article has been neglected for some time, and the we should work to bring it up to the higher current standards of University articles. A lot of stuff was added to Wikipedia in 2006 that would not pass muster today. The fact that the article failed a GA review in 2007 should tell you something. The purpose of the article is not to document campus slang, or to document the current undergradute prespective of a university. It is to present verifiable accurate information in an encyclopedic way. I know you will work with us toward that goal. Racepacket (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I have posted a compromise solution in the article -- I have moved it from a parenthetical in the lead sentence to the paragraph where the school colors and mascot is discussed. It seems to relate to the mascot's U-hand-sign and the University's athletic logo. I am sure there are a lot of nicknames out there for Universities: Wahos, 'Canes, etc. which relate to "school spirit" and not to the academic institution as a whole. No professor would travel to an academic conference in another state and introduce himself as coming from "The U". Let's find a solution that preserves the dignity and integrity of Wikipedia and of the University of Miami, and keep all of the school spirit stuff in one place. Racepacket (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I have posted yet another approach using the University of Virginia as a model. The claim that "The University" means the University of Virginia. Racepacket (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Stop removing the references that support the statements. You are never going to find something that says "The University of Miami is affectionately called 'The U'". All that is going to exist is people referring to the school as "The U" when the context of "the University of Miami" has already been set. There is no consensus here or at WT:UNI for your repeated removals of this text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
If one reads the references, they do not support anything. Providing "examples" does not prove anything. If you must list the example, have text in the footnote to explain it. The text is verbatim from the first footnote of the University of Virginia, which lists "The University" as alternative name for that school. I can understand that people there would call the sports logo "The U" and the gesture made with both hands illustrated in the photo of the mascot "The U." I don't pretend to understand why. It reminds me of the old but true story about the faculty member who burst into the office of the secretary of Abbott Lawrence Lowell, the President of Harvard asking to see him. The secretary said, "The President went to Washington to see Mr. Coolidge." I am open to reasonable solutions and have proposed about a dozen now. We must come up with one that is verifiable and has the footnote match the text. If the solution reflects that we are not naive enough to think that everyone associates "The U" with Miami, that would be better. Racepacket (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
There is plenty of information in the article to support the fact, including a statement by the school itself, that it goes by the name "The U". [5]. There is plenty and all you have been doing is removing every reference that is put forward. Again, you are asking for something that outright says "the University of Miami is called 'UM', 'Miami of Florida', and 'The U'". This is not going to fucking exist. This is wikilaywering with WP:V. Examples of use are the best it's going to be. If you remove the references or alter the lead again I will request disciplinary measures on WP:ANI. This aspect of the article is as good as it's going to be.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed a new solution - no text in the parenthetical, and move the characterizations to the footnotes. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Every other article on such schools have "commonly referred to". Just leave the text as it is not confusing or misleading in any way. Your continued removals of references and alterations of the text are getting misleading.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The above statement is not true. For example, consider this first two sentences, "The University of Wyoming is a land-grant university located in Laramie, Wyoming, situated on Wyoming's high Laramie Plains, at an elevation of 7,200 feet (2194 m), between the Laramie and Snowy Range mountains. It is known as UW (often pronounced "U-Dub") to people close to the university." They acknowledge that it is limited to people close to the University. People in Wisconsin think of UW as something else. Can you live with this, because "commonly referred" is a weasel word phrase, and footnote 2 is completely off-point. Please don't make changes unless the comply with WP:V. Racepacket (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I still fail to see how "commonly referred" is a weasel word. Any changes that have been made completely comply with WP:V. You are just choosing singular aspects of the policy to get your way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Stop eliminating every single reference and stop changing it. You were bold, the change was reverted, and we should discuss things before implimenting anything new. Follow WP:BRD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Fine. I will give you a hour to explain why the University of Wyoming model is not desirable. What you have now is not consensus. You removed User:B's wording without explaining what was wrong with it. You have never explained your Footnote #2 which does not mention "Miami of Florida," and your other footnotes do not flag to the reader that you are offering examples rather than a true source for your unsourced statement. Again, the current proposal reads:
"The University of Miami is a private, non-sectarian university founded in 1925 in the city of Coral Gables, Florida, a historic suburb of Miami. The Miller School of Medicine and various other departments are located in Miami proper at the Miami Civic Center and on Virginia Key. It is known as UM, Miami of Florida, or The U to people close to the university." Racepacket (talk)
This is because there is only one alternate name for the University of Wyoming (being UW/U-Dub). The "Miami of Florida" moniker exists to differentiate between Miami University in Ohio within a sports setting (or within a setting where both UMiami and MiamiU are discussed). UM is the general abbreviation (just as UWyoming is UW and Chapel Hill is UNC) and can be used in any setting and does not merely refer to those within a geographical proximity to the school. "The U" is the only one where this model could feasibly be used, however there are references that show that "The U" is used within an athletic context to solely refer to Miami and it is used by the school itself (as are evident in references pointed out here or links on ANI or on UNI). The Wyoming model therefore states something that is not present in the references which you constantly remove: that the names are limited to the geographic proximity of the campuses. I have proven this to be incorrect.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. 1) The formulation can work with 3 alternative names as well as one. 2) I agree that "Miami of Florida" is there to differentiate with Miami of Ohio, and is understood nationwide. You don't need any footnote for it, and footnote #2 does not use "Miami of Florida." 3) I have not seen a non-local use of "The U" to refer to University of Miami. Each of the cites are a school-specific team fan cite, the university website, a quote of a soldier which is carefully clarified to say that it meant Miami, the title of a future film about the team, not the whole school which causes further ambiguity, etc. The video you cite has a narrator who goes out of his way to say he is a native of Miami Florida. does not routinely use "The U" without clarification. I do not mind including the sources if you preface them in "local use" or "athletic use" as a "signal" on each one, so that the reader will understand that they are examples, not support for the statement.
If you want to discuss/demonstrate that "the U" has nationwide significance, then go with the Wyoming model for UM and Miami of Florida, and then discuss "The U" separately in the athletics section. What is there now is unsatisfactory 1)because it equates UM, Miami of Florida and The U. 2) It includes Footnote 2 which is off-point. 3) It does not warn the reader that you are giving examples rather than references that prove the sentence. Racepacket (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The link and the ESPN documentaries and official website links show that "The U" refers to the school if not only its symbolism and sports teams. The Ohio website (which I cannot recall at this point) also refers to Miami as "The U", as do various other links. There is no need to use another article's formatting when this one is used on several other articles. The footnotes are fine. There is no need to differentiate between examples rather than citations which prove it because the examples are what prove the use exists.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Can we at least agree on Footnote 23? You previously saw the problem two years ago. You are entitled to your opinions, but what in your view is the harm of helping the reader with the signals "athletic use" and "local use". Alternatively, why not just use the Wyoming model? We have Minnesota and that radio station using "The U" so it is not a nationwide, unambiguous use. Racepacket (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Footnote 2 is the one that supports that "UM" is used. And it does not matter that Minnesota and the radio station also use "The U". I have said in the past that "The U" is used for multiple institutions (as was the case at the article previously at The U). Miami is one of them. Minnesota is one of them. Utah is one of them. That does not mean "The U" should be eliminated from each article, because each school is commonly called "The U" wherever it is being said (Florida is not The U, neither is Rhode Island, Maryland, Chicago, Illinois, etc.).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is now Footnote 3. What does it add? It proves Miami (FL). I am asking you to go with the Wyoming model to reflect the fact that "The U" and "UM" are used for multiple institutions, which yu correctly note. I don't understand your objections to the Wyoming model. You might like a different model more, but an affirmative statement that the meanings have geographic limitations (in the Wyoming model) is better than an affirmative statement that they are "common" with unstated geographic scope (current version). Racepacket (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed the Miami (FL) thing to show that the school is referred to as "Miami (of Florida)". I simply do not like the Wyoming model and feel that the page currently is good enough (with the references and whatnot).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but your proposal doesn't address the concerns and is not consensus. It even violates MOS:BOLDTITLE I have another proposal. Racepacket (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There are so many MOS's that it's hard to follow them at times.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A Google search for +"The U" +Miami turns up a number of non-UM affiliated references including The U, The U (Miami), and The U of Miami. Some of the news sources reference The U in connection with the split U logo. I don't recall other schools featuring the letter so prominently, but I'm not that tuned in to college logos. In any case, this whole disagreement has been tedious and obviously fraught with personal preferences. I still wonder why it's so important to Racepacket who does not appear to be part of the UM community. I thought my discussion with Ryulong got carried away. Racepacket, we understand you don't like it. We understand you think The U is evil. We understand that you think you have the perfect solution. What I don't understand is why you continue to press a minority position and demand to override something accepted by the UM community that has been accepted for years. Do go be man (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fusion proposal

I am combining User:B's footnote text with DroEsperanto suggestion to combine the footnotes with the Wyoming model and then dropping what was Footnote 3.

The '''University of Miami''' is a private, non-sectarian [[university]] founded in 1925 in the city of [[Coral Gables, Florida|Coral Gables]], [[Florida]], a historic suburb of [[Miami, Florida|Miami]]. The [[Miller School of Medicine]] and various other departments are located in [[Miami, Florida|Miami]] proper at the Miami Civic Center and on [[Virginia Key]]. It is known as '''UM''',<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=About Us {{!}} University of Miami|accessdate=2009-09-08}}</ref> or '''Miami of Florida''', or '''The U'''<ref>At the University of Miami, "the U" can refer to the school itself or [ the school's athletic logo] or to a made-for-TV film about the football team.<br>quoting an alumnus: {{cite web|url=|title=DefenseLink News Article: America Supports You: University of Miami ‘Adopts’ Sailors in Iraq|accessdate=2007-04-26|date=2007-01-14}}<br>athletic use: {{cite web|url=|title=Ohio State football finding increasingly fertile recruiting ground in Florida -|accessdate=2009-09-08|date=2009-09-02}}<br>film name:{{cite web|url=|title=(rak on tur') - The U|accessdate=2009-09-08}}<br>flim name: {{cite web|url=|title=ESPN 30 for 30|accessdate=2009-09-08}}</ref>to people close to the university. Racepacket (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you stop implimenting these changes before or shortly after discussing them on this page? That's not how things work. I do not like how you are forcing descriptions of the various footnotes within the footnote text. It's superfluous and in many cases not accurate to the description of the reference. There's nothing that says "The U" only refers to the athletic logo, and making extensive prose in the footnotes is unnecessary (as are most of the references currently). All show that "University of Miami" = "The U", whether it be in reference to the school or the football team.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I have combined three editors ideas, so I am putting it forward as more of a consensus and more consistent than what you chose to put up there for the past 5 hours. Please do not constantly revert changes without first discussing them. You are correct that "The U" refers to many things, as we have now discussed in the article, both in terms of the University and athletics. I am honoring your wish to introduce a third element — a made for TV film called "The U" which is produced by a Univ of Miami alumnus at a Miami-based film production company ("rak on tur"). You are the first Wikipedia I have met who argues that less clarity is better than more clarity. Let's work with the fusion proposal for a while and see where other editors want to take it. I have suggested that the items referenced only confuse the readers and do not support the "commonly referred" language. The Wyoming Proposal gets us around the "commonly referred" problem. (The old text leaves the reader wondering about the geographic scope of the claim.) User B is right in telling the reader that there is more than one sense that "The U" is used. (You have added the film as a third one.) I would drop any footnote on "Miami of Florida". Again, we have both learn alot in the past week, and I am trying to be flexible and accommodate your concerns. But current Footnotes 3 through 9 do not comply with WP:FOOT which requires footnotes to be "used to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article." WP:FOOT goes on to say, " Citing sources is important for improving the quality of Wikipedia's articles. A key content policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, including any contentious material about living people and all quotations, must have a source. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be removed from any article, and if it is, the burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to restore it." All week, your formulations have been "poorly sourced" yet you argue that you don't have any burden of proof because the problem has been there for two years. Let's work together to find a mutually agreeable way forward. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is an agreement. You don't make the change and then agree on it. You agree on a proposal and then impliment it. And you are the only person who has ever wanted an assertion that "The U" is a viable alias for this institution. I have done no poor sourcing. You merely think that every source brought forward to support the usage of "The U" is poor. I've yet to see anyone else talk about the references other than you. And I've yet to see any actual good change be made to the lead paragraph by you. You keep thinking of things that no one else has in the three years that the text in question has been in the article. There's nothing for "Miami of Florida" in the article now. It's merely "Miami (of Florida)" which is what "Miami (FL)" means. If I remove the references you're going to remove the text entirely again. I don't see this issue with sourcing the alternate names on any other article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on my talk page, but to avoid forking the discussion, let me assure you that I am not trying to play "gotcha" with you regarding dropping the footnotes. I still am troubled by the phrase "commonly referred to". We can delete it and have a naked parenthetical OR (referred to as "UM", "Miami", or "The U" by people close to the university). The concern I voiced on Sept 2-5 was that we can't claim that people not connected with Miami (e.g., in Minnesota) would think that "The U" meant Miami.
I don't object to discussing "The U" in the athletics section. I suspect (although I could not guess from the original article) that "the U" refers to the whole football-centered school pride scene. (The "Bad Boys" plus 14,000) The promotional trailer for the film makes this point. The current formulation suggests that "the U" is for lazy people who want to text five characters instead of spelling out University of Miami. All of the above is too much to wrap up and bury in the words "commonly referred". We need something different that is clear to the reader. Racepacket (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently, Florida's article is the only other one I have seen "commonly referred". I don't feel that "locally known as" would be a sufficient cover due to the national reference of "The U" to mean Miami in regards to the school when used by football players.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I have tried separating the potentially "national-scope" meaning of "The U" (football players saying it on TV) from the "local-scope" meaning of "The U" (reference to the school). I think that a second sentence: "It is known as '''UM''', '''Miami''', or '''The U'''<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=DefenseLink News Article: America Supports You: University of Miami ‘Adopts’ Sailors in Iraq|accessdate=2007-04-26|date=2007-01-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=|title=Ohio State football finding increasingly fertile recruiting ground in Florida -|accessdate=2009-09-08|date=2009-09-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=|title=(rak on tur') - The U|accessdate=2009-09-08}}</ref> to people close to the university." allows for alumni watching TV in Chicaog to be covered. Couple that with the fact that the Athletic Dept is using the phrase "The U" in its branding would give you complete expression to your concerns. How about it? Racepacket (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I really wish that you would allow for someone to say something about the proposal before you impliment it. I still do not like the phrasing, nor the unnecessary addition of text about "The U" to the athletics section. Why does the "UM", "Miami", and "The U" content have to come at the end of the paragraph? The UW page is the only one I have seen treat the text this way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You are also pulling at straws to incorporate the hand gesture which is not really important or referred to by anything in the text of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You don't want more text in the footnotes of the parenthetical. The solution is to have it in the text and to make the parenthetical a separate sentence. If you want to merge the first paragraph with the second paragraph so that it is not the last sentence, we can do that. I think the article needs something other than "commonly referred" to express the idea of the limited scope of these alternative names. "University of Miami" is uniquely able to be used throughout the English speaking world to identify this school. The others do not have that strength and scope. How do we say that clearly to the readers? A separate sentence is a clear approach, while the parenthetical causes problems. So long as the explanation of the abbreviations happen before they are used in the article, it is consistent with WP:MOS. Look at some other Wikipedia leads:
  • "The University of Oxford (informally Oxford University, or simply Oxford), located in the City of Oxford, Oxfordshire,"
  • "The University of Cambridge (informally Cambridge University), located in the City of Cambridge, Cambridgeshire,"
  • "Yale University is a private research university in New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, and a member of the Ivy League."
  • "The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (U of M, U-M, UM, UMich, or simply Michigan) is a public research university located in the state of Michigan in the United States."
  • "Cornell University (pronounced /kɔrˈnɛl/) is a private university located in Ithaca, New York, USA, that is a member of the Ivy League."
  • "The University of Texas at Austin (also referred to as the University of Texas, UT Austin, UT, or Texas) is a public research university located in Austin, Texas, United States, and is the flagship institution of The University of Texas System."
  • "The University of Notre Dame du Lac (or simply Notre Dame) (pronounced /ˌ [nɔtʁ dam]/) is a private Catholic research university located in Notre Dame, Indiana, USA."
  • "University of Oklahoma, abbreviated OU, is a coeducational public research university located in Norman, Oklahoma. "
  • "The University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (known locally as the U of M or the U) is a public research university located in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, United States."
  • "The University of Utah, referred to locally as the U or the U of U, is a public, coeducational research university in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States."

None of them used footnotes. Why did you increase the footnotes on your latest edit? None of them used "commonly referred". I think that "referred to locally as" (the University of Utah model) or the Wyoming model are the best. — Racepacket.

The fact that there are two non-Miami area references that refer to the school as "The U" should show that it is a common alias and not a local one. Would removing "Commonly" from the lead serve the same purpose? Because I have proven time and again that the names are not "local".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand your concern, and I think that the Wyoming model meets it. The problem with "commonly" as opposed to "locally" is that it implies a large geographic scope. The fact that an alumnus soldier in Iraq was quoted as calling it "The U" does not mean that non-alumni in Iraq would also call it that. I think he was trying to use local slang in his interview to reinforce his University ties over speaking with normal clarity. The second source, which I accidentally left off, but later added back in the same footnote is to That article says that the school was known as "The U" in Florida not in Ohio when these five players were growing up there. I have tried to capture the athletic element of "The U" in the Athletic portion of the article. But I don't know any way to make a single statement that can apply equally to "the U", "Miami" and "UM." One of your desires is a single parenthetical in the first sentence. That means a single way to characterize all three. "The U" has Minnesota and Utah problems. Miami has a big confusion problem with "Miami University." "UM" has problems with every other UM campus. To me, "locally" is the only safe way to wrap them up in a single parenthetical. If you will give up on the parenthetical, we can work from the Wyoming model and use a second sentence to spell out what you are trying to say. Our primary goal in accuracy and clarity. Completeness in documenting the use of nicknames is secondary. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed "commonly" and just have "referred" in the lead currently. Does this suffice? And also, that soldier is not an alumnus. He's simply a soldier "adopted" who calls it "The U", as it is called in most circles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that "referred to locally" would be safer. Racepacket (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
But that is not supported by the references.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess we read the references differently. was talking about five OSU football players who grew up in Florida. How about using the Wyoming model, "to people close to the university." On another subject, is "The U" film produced by ESPN or by rak on tur? Racepacket (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Rather than reverting the changes repeatedly, why not articulate what your concerns are with the posted formulation. Racepacket (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not the first editor to object to the weasel word nature of the parenthetical. It was raised back in 2006 and here. Let's find an alternative to "referred to" &mdash: by whom? Racepacket (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
"Referred to" cannot be weasel words in any possible fashion. It's just "referred to". There does not need to be an extensive discussion of who refers to the school as "UM", "Miami", or "The U".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If we go with "referred to" we owe it to the reader to be clear about referring to the football team. I think that people close to the university call it the "U" in response to the New Visual Identity, but that people unconnected to the university call the football team 'the U'. I also think that people unconnected to the school call it "Miami of Florida" because few people understand the difference between "University of Miami" and "Miami University." So the readers are apt to get confused and a detailed footnote is needed here. I share your general preference for short footnotes, but this is a very special case. Racepacket (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The visual identity stuff happened in the past year. The school was known as "The U" long before that. And "Miami of Florida" is no longer in the lead. There is no need to have an overly detailed footnote, and especially no reason to turn two references into one footnote.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
One footnote is less distracting to the reader and saves repeating the signal. What are your specific objections and why don't you leave it up there for a while to let other people react to it? I will repost as two separate footnotes for now but I think they can easily be combined. Racepacket (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Just leave them as two separate normal citations. You are obfuscating the point and continually suggesting in your edits that the name "The U" solely refers to the football team.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If you read both articles, each one is referring to just the football team - the BCS Championship and the team that won 34 games. I think there is a leap between these articles and a claim that "the U" means the entire university to those people. When discussing football, "Miami" is probably associated with the school in Florida more than the one in Ohio. But there are academic fields where Miami University is much better known that the University of Miami. Similarly, the fans of the "The U" radio station will not think of either Miami school. Racepacket (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have proven time and again that "The U" refers to the team and the school. I am aware that there are other entities known as "The U". This fact does not mean that there needs to be extensive explanation of this small factoid in this article. I am tired of arguing this point with you. Just leave it be and stop trying to divert the knowledge of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I am tired of asking the same thing. Stop changing the lead paragraph. The reformattings are getting bothersome and you keep doing the same one. I can tell your problem is not with "commonly" but rather with "The U", which is what you originally had removed from the article. It does not freaking matter that the name is not universally related to this one institution. I have provided enough to show that the name merits inclusion and is a common alias for it, regardless of people being alumni.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes in negotiating wording it helps to repeat back to the other person what you think they are saying. In this case, User:Ryulong is repeating back "I can tell your problem is not with 'commonly'..." However, I have repeatedly stated that "commonly" is a weasel word which can be read as casting a broader geographic and demographic scope that might be justified by the facts. I think the Wyoming model better captures what we are trying to say than "commonly referred to" I did Ryulong the honor of leaving his formulation up for comment for a day, and I would hope that he would allow the Wyoming model to stay up for further reaction. Alternatively, I again propose that we get a mediator in here. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Bold, revert, discuss. You were bold in changing to the Wyoming model. I disagreed with it and reverted it. Now we discuss a possible compromise without putting up the same shit again. I removed "commonly" from the lead. You still changed it to the Wyoming model, with continued suggestions that "The U" is only used by locals and alumni, which the references prove is not the case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the same could be said for your efforts to insert "commonly". Why not try going down a different direction. The two references provided are both to the football team. The style of sports journalism is very slang oriented. Sportswriters tend to go overboard on the use of nicknames to try to show tha they are "with it." Encyclopedias are the opposite and we must avoid trying to cover a lot of substance in the first sentence of an article of this length. Look at all of the lead sentences that I have collected and posted above. They don't get into athletic nicknames, of which the university has quite a few that are not listed, such as Hurricanes and 'Canes. Thanks.Racepacket (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
So what if the name is attached to the sports teams? All of this shows that the school has taken the name unto itself. When I removed "commonly" you still had a problem with the lead and put in the unnecessary text in the footnotes, like they needed an explanation. Obviously "The U" has been the issue with your edits and I've yet to see why.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It is against Wikipedia policy to edit other people's talk page comments. Moving them out of the context in which they were made is very bad, or arbitrarily trying to separate parts of the discussion with non-related sections of the talk page is dishonest. To your point, the search you supplied is meaningless. For example there was an article quoting "The U.S. State Department" and it was included because of the first five letters. If you have some reliable sources, add them to the article. I am willing to believe that people can refer to the whole institution using words like "campus," "school," "it," or 'the U." I am also willing to admit that the Athletic Department has been trying to brand "The U" since 1973. The article can talk about those things, but be very careful what you put in the first sentence of the article. Racepacket (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
There has been no such refactoring here. The thread has been moved to a more accurate location on the page based on the discussion time, and having this thread in the middle of the page on an older discussion is unnecessary. And you have been consistently proven wrong that "The U" is the same as "campus" or "school". "The U" is a proper noun. "Campus" and "school" are common nouns. This thread is in fact entirely different from what you had originally added it to anyway. Not every university calls itself "The U". There are a handful that do, but that does not mean that Miami's use should be excluded from this article. Simply because the athletic department uses a U instead of "UM" in its branding does not mean Miami is not "The U". Time and again I have proven you wrong in this belief, as have other users. It is pretty damn clear that your issue is not the word "commonly" but the phrase "The U".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me clarify myself: the University of Miami is not referred to as "the campus" or "the school", because those are not proper names. The University of Miami is called "Miami", "UM", and "The U". On the University of Miami's website there are over 700 results for "The U". Regardless of the fact that a Google News search shows a clear affinity of the name "The U" with the football team, this shows that "The U" is the name when referring to Miami in a national sports context. UMiami's own extensive use of the name in its materials, branding, and visual identity is plenty of information to show that they call themselves and they want the world to know that they are "The U", even if other institutions also go by that name.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow the above logic. 1) Words and phrases (without regard for being common or proper nouns) have meanings that depend on geographic context. "Yellow Cab" is a proper noun. But it refers to a different company in each city. Even on the Miami campus, "The U" can refer to the whole institution, the Athletics logo, the hand gesture, or the title of the new film about the football team. To someone close to the university, the phrase "The U" could mean the University of Miami. To someone in Ohio, either "Miami" or "The U" could mean Miami University. To someone in Minnesota, either "UM" or "The U" could mean University of Minnesota. 2) The issue has never been whether "every university calls itself 'The U'." The issue is that the references you have provided strongly suggest that "The U" is used in the football team context (which is supported by the Athletics Dept adopting a split-U logo in 1973 and in people making the U hand gesture.) Again, I assume that people don't make the hand gesture in English Dept lecture halls, but do it at football games. Also, eventhough football players are encourage to introduce themselves on TV as being from "The U", when faculty travel to academic conferences, they say "University of Miami." 3) I think that "the U" is an abbreviation for "the university" and that people speak and text prose in that way without regard to "official encouragement" of an institution. There is no reference supporting an official encouragement of using "The U" to refer to the institution, but I would encourage you to try to develop coverage of this aspect of campus culture, perhaps in the Athletics section. Your last comment argues that extensive use on the various pages of the University website constiute official encouragement. But a lot of materials are placed on university websites without high-level policy review, so I don't think the ghit argument will work. (And we have "The U.S. State Dept" counting as a ghit.) Are you claiming common use in the language or official sanctioning by the institution? 4) This is all too complicated to shoehorn into the first sentence. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

N.B. Although this thread started in 2007, it picked up in March 2009, and repeated efforts to split the thread in half by relocating parts of it are not helpful and very distruptive. Racepacket (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It did not pick up in March 2009. It was a single comment which was not really acknowledged. Your September 2009 additions are effectively a new discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The U hand gesture has nothing to do with the name "The U". It has to do with the split-U logo, which is called "The U". The school is called "The U". The sports community refers to it as "The U". Even forgetting the single hit on the school's website for "The U.S. State Dept", the use of "The U", even in quotations of faculty/staff or on the website itself, shows the pervasiveness of the name. "The U" may be an abbreviation for "The University" but that does not in any way mean that every school known as "The University of..." is "The U". Only a few are referred to as such. "The U" is an informal name, just like any alias for any major university. Researchers from North Carolina State University do not introduce themselves as being from "NC State" as far as I am aware. If you want to be really anal about the use of the words, then when the article is unprotected because of your repeated edit warring over the lead paragraph, "commonly" can be replaced with "informally". And the only reason all of this is too complicated to shoehorn into the first sentence is because you are making it overly complicated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa

Individual students are elected to PBK, not entire universities. Generally, any four-year accredited degree granting college can start a chapter. So I am deleting the references. Racepacket (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami

The history section contains some very misleading statements about this fund raising campaign. The text states that UM was "the youngest" school to conduct a $1 billion campaign, but the source says it is "one of the youngest". I have left the statement in the article for now with a [citation needed] template, but I think it is very hard to prove.

This whole discussion is very misleading. Suppose that a college has two different administrative teams, each of which conducts back to back $500 million fundraising campaigns. Isn't that the same as one set of fundraisers conducting a $1 billion campaign over twice the time period? A more relevant measure is total endowment size or total physical plant investment. These measures affect the quality of the institution far more than the size of particular fundraising campaigns. I understand why a school's development office would issue a self-congratulatory press release at the end of a fund drive. But Wikipedia should not blindly accept it and then add to the puffing by changing "one of the youngest" to "the youngest in the nation." Does anyone object if we delete this or tone it down? Racepacket (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Every University has fundraising campaigns. In fact, most universities, including the University of Miami is continuously raising funds. There is nothing historic about that. We reached consensus back on September 2 with the sentence, and now (which is a Univ of Miami IP address) is trying to add back in some of the unencyclopedic puffing. Racepacket (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC) is not a University of Miami IP address. It geolocates to Long Beach, California. Also, why shouldn't we mention how much the campaign was seeking to get and how much it raised? It appears to be notable enough. The text there is neutral and reliably sourced.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I had the IP address confused with another. Sorry. I think that in writing the history section, we should carefully weigh and balance the various events. It is legitimate to suggest that the University under Shalala is improving, including more buildings, more faculty, and better fundraising. We have that. I don't think that individual campaigns are of sufficient note to be included by name and dollar goal in the article. I suppose that we could list each campaign and dollar goal in a table, but that would be overkill as well. I assume that UM has been fundraising since the day it was founded, and continues to fundraise eventhough the "Momentum" campaign ended. Generally, the way such campaigns operate is that they get big donors to pre-pledge about 50% of the announced goal before the public launch of the campaign (which is the way that they select the goal number.) So, just because there is not a public campaign on any date does not mean that solicitations are not occuring for the next one. I will dial this back and remove the reference to "Momentum" again, hence the dollar goals are no relevant. This will bring the history section in line witih those of other universities. Racepacket (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It provides anohter reliably sourced statement. Your removals of the final amount as well as the fact that it raised the most money within Florida seem pointless. Again, you don't make changes then discuss them on the talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The unofficial name of the fund raising campaign is not relevant in the overall scheme of things. I don't think that individual campaigns are of sufficient note to be included by name and dollar goal in the article. We need to dial back on the boosterism. Racepacket (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The name is explicitly mentioned in the reference as is the fact that it was the most out of any Florida school. Why is this not something that should be replicated on the article?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Companies name things all of the time. For example, Ryan Homes or any other national builder gives each house design a cute name, but those names are not lasting in the popular culture. There are over 1000 colleges in the United States and most of them are conducting fund raising, many with names or slogans that are trying to catch donor attention. "Momentum" is just the first word of the campaign's name. Any day now, UM will start its next campaign with a different name. I agree that the newpaper is separate from UM, but it is still local coverage. The article reads as if it just blindly repeated the materials from the UM press release with a few comments about other local colleges. WP:UNI guidelines state, "Refactoring rankings (71st nationally according to the source, but 2nd among colleges in the state) to boost the score constitutes original research and is not permitted." For this reason, we should leave out how it ranks in terms of Florida fundraising compaigns. Besides, as stated above, a "fundraising campaign" is not a known unit of measure. Some campaigns last two years and others last eight. How does one compare an eight year campaign against two consecutive four year campaigns? For this reason, most articles in WP:UNI do not discuss fundraising in terms of specific campaigns, but rather in general terms. Racepacket (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) First, this is an informal warning to both of you to cease edit warring; your continual bickering is out of hand and you must stop. Second, Racepacket, there are over 4,000 colleges and universities in the US and the fact that you don't know that does not give me confidence in your knowledge of American higher education. Third, it does seem notable to me that UM's capital campaign was the largest in the state of Florida as Florida is a highly-competitive higher education market (as one would expect of one of the most populous states in the union). It seems to me that we most definitely should mention this fact if we're going to mention the campaign at all as it puts it into very clear perspective, giving the reader a clear basis of comparison. Finally, Racepacket's argument that "'fundraising campaign' is not a known unit of measure" seems nonsensical to me. Those campaigns raise money; that's what they do. So comparing them in terms of the amount of money raised is completely appropriate. --ElKevbo (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was talking order of magnitude, not exact numbers of colleges that actively fundraise. The end results -- total size of endowment and/or endowment per student -- are far better measures of fund raising success than dollars/per campaign. The UM campaign was seven years long. How should we compare it to another school that conducted two consecutive campaigns during the same period? An "academic year" is a known unit of measure, a "campaign" is completely self-defined, and not a known unit of measure. National statistics report funds raised per year, not funds raised per campaign. Also, I don't think that state boundaries are an appropriate way of setting up the basis of comparision. Hence, I am going back to the prior sentence which reported that UM had a fund raising campaign, the campaign resulted in an increase to UM's endowment, and where UM's endowment now ranks nationally. Racepacket (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
In terms of Florida, U of Florida is in the middle of its $1.5 billion "Florida Tomorrow" campaign, which has raised $959,510,517 as of 9/2008. [6] Racepacket (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hence, I am going back to the prior sentence No, you don't own this article and your edits clearly lack consensus. Continue asserting ownership of this article and editing against consensus and we'll pursue dispute resolution. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I am tired of this, too. I do not want to edit war, but every day my edits to improve the article and make it better in my eyes are reverted or modified in a way by Racepacket that completely changes the meaning of what I had intended to say or removes information which I thought was notable. And if UF has not yet raised $1.5 billion, the Momentum Campaign has still raised more money than them. The fact that the reference cited clearly states that Momentum raised the most out of any university in Florida at the time of that news article's writing means that we can replicate this information. And I really don't know why the fuck you don't want the particular name of the fundraising campaign mentioned at all in the article. You've removed the word "Momentum" every time you change the content of that particular section. More and more I am seeing a bias against Miami in your edits and a stubbornness that is getting in the way of improving this article and getting it to Good Article status, which you have been continually harping on trying to achieve. Perhaps if you stopped changing things to how you see fit to get the article to GA status and merely allowed the regular editors of the article to improve it as they have been for the past seven years, we could get to FA status without your assistance and insistance on strict editing practices.
Also, I've asked you to do this every time but you've frankly ignored my requests: use the citation templates. Using bare URLs as references is not how things are even done in formal writing when citing websites. The Chicago style requires that you use the name of the webpage when listing it in the references cited section, as do MLA, APA, and Turabian. As a website, we have the ability to have the name also serve as a link. So instead of just doing <ref> Retrieved 2009-10-07.</ref> use {{cite web|url=|title=Wikipedia|accessdate=2009-10-07}}</ref>. It's not that difficult.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the one with ownership issues here. We had a concensus at the version of Sept 29 but then Ryulong decided that long-standing material did not "fit" and did not "flow." I have no objection to his rolling up some of these items into a sentence about the Shalala administration, but I believe the earlier formulation on fundraising -- which talks about the results in national terms rather than Florida terms in more neutral and balanced. I also don't think that the name of the campaign has any historic or encyclopedic significance or relevance. "Momentum" is not the official name of the campaign. Fundraising involves the development staff, not just Shalala, so it is POV to include it the single sentence. If ElKevbo wants to roll back to a consensus, let's roll back to September 29. I have proposed mediation before on the "the U" issue, but it was rejected. Racepacket (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Damn man, drop the fact that I did not feel that those three sentences/paragraphs fit in with the rest of the prose of that section, but you seem to ignore the fact that I changed my mind and incorporated them into the section anyway. The issue now is that you are nitpicking over these things, again. Tell us why the name "Momentum" (which is the name used to refer to it in all media and by the campaign itself) should not be used in the article and why the fact that the named fundraising campaign has (as of this writing) raised the most money out of any similar campaign in the state of Florida. Don't skirt around the issue as you have been.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The reference you provide confirms that the official title of the campaign (which ended in 2008) was "Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami". On a per year basis, at least one other school in Florida raised more funds than UM, not that I accept that Florida is the relevant area to judge fundraising. If this topic is to be presented objectively, it needs more than one phrase in the sentence that you have proposed. I think that the sentence, "In 2003, the university launched a fund raising drive which grew its endowment to the point that it ranks 97th in size in the nation." does a better job because 1) it avoids misleading, incomplete details about the drive, 2) it uses a national comparison to report the outcome, 3) it is phrase in terms of the University rather than attributing it to Shalala's leadership, and 4) it focuses on the primary goal of the campaign which was to build endowment. In contrast, the proposed alternative, "Under Shalala's leadership, Miami also raised $1.4 billion in the Momentum campaign, more money than any Florida university" has these disadvantages: 1) it focuses on Shalala, not the institution and donors; 2) it does not properly state the actual name of the campaign; 3) it does not make clear to the reader what "the Momentum campaign" was; 4) it does not explain that it was $1.4 billion over seven years; 5) it leaves unanswered what the money was for -- endowment and some construction rather than new football uniforms; and 6) it makes a false comparison with "any Florida university." Racepacket (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
And I fail to see how the writing does not meet a neutral point of view when it discusses items that have happened while Shalala was the University President. The sentence does not say that Shalala is the brains of it. The writing I put in place says "Under Shalala's leadership, Miami [has]..." The subject of the sentence is the school, not Shalala.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
We have a stylistic difference here. From its start, the history section was organized chronologically, with different topics being covered in separate paragraphs, some long and some short. For "better flow", you are now trying to move it to a new organization where each paragraph is centered on a separate UM President and what happened in his/her administration. Societal forces and random acts drive institutional history more than who was President, so the chronological approach will result in greater clarity than the one-paragraph-per-administration approach. WP:UNDUE comes into play here. We have 80 some years of history to cover, and the founding and other key events that define the institution should be definitely included. Otherwise, everyone will have their own personal judgment about what else should go in, and how much detail is relevant or misleading. The fact that there was fundraising throughout the history, that UM almost went broke, that JC Penney and others came to the rescue, and that it has now grown its endowment to 97th in size in the nation seems about the right level of detail. How the effort was broken into campaigns, what they were named, how many years per campaign seems to me to be too detailed. But if you start making comparisons with other schools, then all relevant facts should be explained, to avoid misleading the reader. Our goal is to present UM facts without POV and we don't need to make comparisons to do that. Racepacket (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't respond to you if you do it in two separate places and with so much prose. So I'm going to be concise here. The subject of the sentence is Miami, not Shalala. Just because I reformated three sentences which were being treated as separate paragraphs into one list within a single paragraph whose subject is Shalala does not give undue weight to anything. And just because the single paragraph focuses on what has happened while Shalala was in charge does not produce a stylistic clash with the whole of the section which is more chronological instead of chronological per President. And if more qualifiers need to be added to the content about Momentum, then it should be done. I can't understand any of your other points because it's hidden in your verbosity. I don't know why the fuck you bring up JC Penney or why the subject of the endowment needs to be explained other than your comparison with UF which this article is not about.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, please discuss before changing. Why don't we stick to the Sept 29 version until we can come up with something that garners general agreement? My concerns with your proposal are: 1) Your new paragraphs make this more confusing to the reader. 2) Coral Gables is in Miami-Dade, but not in the "City of Miami". 3) We need to decouple Shalala from the fundraising campaign, 4) There is no need to compare with the University of Florida in the article. "It's a tiny factoid which has no real bearing on the rest of the page." 5) The result was increasing the endowment to 97th in the nation. 6) funds raised per year is a much better basis of comparison that campaign size. 7) the JMWAVE project spanned several different UM Presidents, which is another reason to avoid organizing the history by UM president. 8) the phrase "the first televised debate of the 2004 Presidential election" is very confusing to the reader. What was relevant was that it was a Presidential debate. There is no particular honor in hosting debate #1 vs. #2 or #3, it is just a matter of logistics. If you feel the need to designate which of the three debates was at Miami refer to it by date rather than by "first". I favor just saying "a debate." 8) The referenced Miami Herald article says it "seems to have inspired others." It is WP:SYNTH to conclude that it in fact inspired the University of Florida to either conduct a fund raising campaign or to set its goal at $1.5 billion. If you don't know it for a fact, we should leave it out. The amount of detail needed to make a valid comparison between UM and Univ of Florida's fundraising is not worth the reader's time. Racepacket (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother listening to you anymore. I can't tell what you want done with the article because after every time I try to improve it with your suggestions, you just find different things to say you believe is inaccurate, not a neutral point of view, or whatever. I want a clear and concise list (use a bulleted list) for things that you think is wrong with this section, because right now you are only being a pain in the ass to me and ElKevbo and other regular editors of the article who actually know a thing or two about the subject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Section break*

Rather than engage in an edit war over what is obviously inaccurate information, I have moved the history section to User:Racepacket/UMhistory and suggest we forge a consensus there. Racepacket (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am not sure how Wikipedia should measuring fundraising. The campaign had raised $552 million before the October 2003 launch date, with about half of that before 2003. The initial $1 billion goal was picked so that they were half way there at the launch. I think that it was great that the goal was exceeded (which is frequently the case with capital fund drives.) But the "duration" of the "campaign" is arbitrary and the start date is arbitrary. I also think that it is unfair to compare schools that have an internal teaching hospital with schools that are affiliated with a separate hospital. During this time, UM acquired a teaching hospital, and $851 million went to the Medical campus. Racepacket (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fundraising is measured in monetary amounts. Momentum raised $1.4 billion. This is more than any other school within the state of Florida. Why can't that be used as a reference point? Just because it's Florida? This is getting tiring. If we have a news article that says "most in Florida", then we can say "most in Florida". Just because you do not think this is a good enough comparison does not mean it is not relevant to the subject of the article. Also, I have no idea why you are bringing up the medical school. It just seems like a tangent.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
As I have pointed out before, the problem with your edits is that it sets up a false and subjective comparison between UM and other schools in Florida. The UM campaign had raised $552 million before the October 2003 launch date, with about $277 million before 2003. The initial $1 billion goal was picked so that they were half way there at the launch. As is typically the case, the goal was exceeded and $1.4 billion was raised. But the "duration" of the "campaign" is arbitrary and the start date is arbitrary. I think that such comparisons are inherently misleading. I also think that it is unfair to compare schools that have an internal teaching hospital with schools that are affiliated with a separate hospital. During this time, UM acquired a teaching hospital, and $851 million from the campaign went to the Medical campus. I further question how one can compare a school that conducted an eight-year long campaign with another that may have conducted two, four-year campaigns. So, in my opinion the sentence that was in the article since Sept 5 saying that the campaign increased the endowment is the best way out of this situtation.
Wikipedia's goal is to have a NPOV article, not to be a UM booster. The article is not trying to prove that UM is the best school in Florida. On an annual basis, U of Florida tops UM in fundraising. The only reason why the two campaigns are worth including in the history section is that it shows a 20 year gap between capital campaigns -- which is very unusually in higher education during this time period. Otherwise its not worth including at all in the history. Racepacket (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
How is the name "Momentum" and how we have a source that states that the University of Miami's fundraising campaign raised the most money out of any other similar campaign in the state of Florida (as of the time of the writing of the news article) not abiding with a neutral point of view? You haven't answered these questions to where I can understand your point of view. You've removed this content more times than I can count and I am tired of seeing it happen. Every time you answer this, you bring up other aspects of the subject which I am not asking you about.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
After some side conversations on user talk pages, we are returning the discussion here. Having Wikipedia endorse a comparison between institutions reequires that the comparison is sound and verifiable. One local reporter drawing a comparison does not mean that it is widely accepted. There are national reports of fundraising efforts, and the Chronicle of Higher Education and the Chronicle of Philanthropy run stories on this topic. If a Miami newspaper runs a story comparing various local schools that is not as valid as a professional group like NACUBO ranking all major colleges in a nation-wide survey. I believe the sentence "In 2003, the university launched a fund raising drive, which grew its endowment to the point that it ranks 97th in size in the nation." is a fair comparison based on the NACUBO data. If a comparable reputable study was conducted on some other relevant measure, like dollars raised per year, it can certainly go in, but the compairson offered is flawed. For example, anyone could say that it was "the most raised in the City of Coral Gables," but that is not an accepted basis of measuring institutional performance. Racepacket (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This does not explain why the name "Momentum" cannot be used. Also, I do not agree that the state of Florida and its various universities (Category:Universities and colleges in Florida) cannot be compared. Do we have a reference that says that the UF campaign has reached its $1.5B goal? No. We have a reference that says Miami raised $1.4B and that is the most that has been raised (as of the writing of that news article in the Herald). And you keep saying "not the full name". Well now it's in the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I have used the text of the reference supplied to make the statement as accurate as possible. It states the metric being compared, the most recent date on this information, and the full name "Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami" are now in the article. I don't know what other possible issues you could have with this sentence, other than throwing it out completely which should be discussed here first and agreed upon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion but two other editors disagree with you so unless some other editors come out in favor of your viewpoint please do not edit this section of the article to enforce your consensus-lacking opinion. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of avoiding further disagreements continuing well out of context, could everyone please engage in discussion before making unilateral edit decisions that oppose consensus? Bold editing is one thing. Avoiding consensus and discussion another. You may find the Etiquette article useful in adapting your methods to those more in line with the general Wikipedia community. NPOV does not require eliminating all positive discussion of a subject. Merely repeating the same thing and expecting different results looks and quacks like a duck. Do go be man (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Do go be the man: This was settled days ago, but Ryulong's WP:OWNership impulses have perpetuated the dispute and kept it going by trying to reformat the discussion to create the impression that it is still an ongoing dispute. I agree that discussion on the talk page is helpful. We are not trying to "eliminate all positive discussion of a subject." We are trying to sort out the facts from the fluff. When we started, the article incorrectly claimed that UM was "the youngest" college to reach $1 billion. We now know that there are at least 85 colleges in the US to have raised $1 billion, that $851 million went to the medical campus, and that U of FL is outraising UM on an annual basis. Given these facts, one has to go into contortions to find "bragging rights" about this particular fund raising campaign. We can say UM raised $X money, but a limited comparison to other Florida colleges will not convince many readers. In contrast, when I came up with unique research accomplishment that UM can brag about, Ryulong summarily deleted them as " a tiny factoid which has no real bearing on the rest of the page." Racepacket (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Putting a section break in place is not creating the impression that this is an ongoing dispute. What is an ongoing dispute is that you think that I am distorting what has been said. I have not modified the content of any of your comments. All I've gotten rid of are the * and i put in ===Section break*=== before the first unindented comment under this subheading. And you cannot remove text which is clearly and reliably sourced to something. Removing reliably sourced information is considered vandalism.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that by sneaking in an asterisk retroactively in your ===Section break*=== heading, it is considered vandalism to remove the heading -- a heading which you insist on inserting to encourage the growth and "verbosity" of a debate which was settled last week? I just want to follow your logic here. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No. I am saying you should stop using asterisks to preface your additional arguments on talk pages. The general practice is to use :, as I have been fixing for some time now. The asterisk in the ===Section break*=== is to distinguish it from the similarly named section on this talk page. What I am also saying that it was never against the rules for me to have split this section off beginning with your comment beginning "Rather than engage in an edit war...", which you assume is wrong and you repeatedly undo my edits to fix your errors and my making this easier to edit and read.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
There are two problems here. First if you change the name of the section, it makes the history page very difficult to use when going back to find comments. Second, retroactive editing of a closed debate creates the mistaken impression that the dispute is still active when in fact the parties settled it. I don't know if this is a part of your litigation strategy or not, but it is very misleading. What incentive do editors have in resolving content disputes with you if you continue the dispute for days afterward by trying to reformat the talk page? Adding section breaks to a finished discussion implies that you want to see alot more text added, when in fact none will be forthcoming. The general practice in the talk pages which I have seen use bullets to separate points. This is a bad case of WP:OWN. Racepacket (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not change any section name. And I have no idea what you are doing referencing the closed debate argument. I have done no such thing to edit a debate after it ended. And I did not add a section break to a finished discussion. And when you are replying to people, you do not use bullet points. So you are wrong on so many counts and your continued assumptions of bad faith are getting in the way of doing anything.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


This section needs major work. First, is the "split U" the "athletics logo" or the University's general logo? What was the bar-logo replaced with? The article should make clear what the differences are between the Athletics Logo and the General Logo. Do we need to include the bar-logo if it has been replaced?

Second, avoid weasle words like the "University is well known for x" unless you have a reference to establish why it is well known.

Third, don't make claims like the football team is "one of the most succcessful" without references. Regarding a claim that the football team was the "national champion" for ten years. I thought that the championship system was overahaulled in 2004, but still there is no clear national champion in college football.

Fourth, I don't know what "having a close relationship with the NFL" means, but it may imply a violation of the NCAA Amateurism Rules. Say what you mean and have a citation to support the claim.

Fifth, a reference is needed regarding a rivalry with Florida State. Also, how can there be a rivarly (as opposed to a former rivarly) with the University of Florida if they rarely play each other?

Sixth, Title IX does not reduce athletic opportunities for students. Rather a general lack of funds reduces the team offering of colleges. There is a causal relationship assumed by the wording, which is not established and cannot be assumed. Wikipedia reports facts not opinions or conjecture. The University had many options to comply with Title IX, it may have chosen to end men's rowing, but that is not dictated by Title IX.

Finally, given that there is a main article called "Miami Hurricanes" isn't this section overly detailled? Racepacket (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

First question, the answer is both. The "bar logo" was the old logo used by the University of Miami in press releases and the like. This was replaced with the split-U logo, shown here.
Second, so fix it.
Third, so fix it.
Fourth, who cares.
Fifth, the rivalries exist. It is not as big as the UNC-NC State rivalry, but I'm sure that a reliable source exists.
Sixth, this is not something that is an issue with the article in sourcing but content that can be fixed or whatever.
Finally, this is a review of Miami Hurricanes, covering all aspects of athletics. The other article focuses entirely on the subject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The 23:40, 5 September 2009 edit by User:Ryulong is extremely biased POV regarding Title IX and is completely unsupported. I have removed it. Racepacket (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The athletics section now reads, "the institution's winning streak in football championships, is described in a nationally-televised ESPN documentary titled The U, scheduled to air December 12, 2009, following..." which raises several questions:
  1. Does the "streak" relate to the number of individual regular season football victories rather than championships (there were only 5 national championships, which were not consecutive)?
  2. Is it fair to describe it as an ESPN documentary or an independent filmmaker documentary?
  3. Is the "scheduled to air December 12, 2009..." a bit over the advertising line?

Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all supported by the reference, even though the content was only added during your inane crusade against the phrase "The U". And even so, why is it important as to whether or not who made the documentary when it's being shown on ESPN?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


I thought that blogs are generally not a reliable source. What is worse that citing to a blog is citing to a University press release that reports on the blog's ranking without giving a cite to the primary source of the ranking.

I don't understand the Hispanic Business magazine’s lists of top ten schools for hispanics. Are the ranked programs bilingual? Perhaps the article should put this into some context and also explain how these programs rank among all American Universities. Racepacket (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the reference that says anything about the subject matter you are questioning, so we cannot say anything about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then let's delete both sentences. Racepacket (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That is not what I said at all. I just said that what you are requesting knowledge about is not mentioned in the reference cited.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Please address my orginal concern - why are we quoting a blog as the source of ratings? Why is Hispanic Business magazine a reliable source of ratings and what criteria are they using? Niether paragraph offers good citations to the sources.Racepacket (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Because clearly the blog is the only source that supports the statement?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Major work needed

1) The list of academic units breaks down between endowed and contract units. Please explain. The wikipedia article statutory college does not cover Florida's scheme, only New York, Texas and Pennsylvania. 2) One unsourced sentence on Research does not do any university justice. 3) The phrase "Unlike some private universities that are located within their namesake city,..." is meaningless. 4) How do we know that the Iron Arrow Honor Society is "prestigious and selective"? 5) How does one reconcile that a blog ranks the Philosophy Dept 5th in the nation while another ranks it 32nd? That is quite a disparity. I would delete both the blog and the Hispanic Business magazine (because the source is not cited and the basis for the evaluation is left unstated.) 6) Many facts are still needing citations for support. Racepacket (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  • There are still problems with the article, although (1)(2) and (3) have been addressed:

4) - I have added a {{notability}} to the Iron Arrow Honor Society article, and if no sources emerge I will send it to Afd. However, we are still missing a cite for "prestigous and selective"? If it is a secret, how do we know that memberships aren't awarded arbitarily or corruptly? In whose eyes is it viewed as "prestigious and selective"? Need an independent secondary source that is not local, or we must remove it.
5) The blog ranking of the Philosophy Dept is a symptom of poor scholarship in compiling the rating sections. Do the other ratings really say "best in Florida" or is that original research? 6) Citations still need a lot of work. Racepacket (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Iron Arrow exists and there are references in the article to support that. Everything else that has been questioned can be sought out through google searches.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, the fact that a US Supreme Court case was brought up concerning Iron Arrow shows that it has notability. Stop removing it from the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with Academics, and the case was moot by the time in reached the Supreme Court. If you want to discuss the case in the history section fine, but the biased honorifics have to go. In most Universities serving on the Board of Trustees is the highest honor. Are you saying that the Trustees are below the Iron Arrow on the university's pecking order. The sentence gives the impression that the Head Football Coach is dispatched to carry each Iron Arrow member's bookbags for them. Please view WP:N and WP:V.
We still need to know how many faculty have these various listed honors? One, two or more? Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Nothing is said in the article that suggests anything you have said. You are again making very poor comparisons between items to make a point. And I am unaware of there being a count of people with the honor.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Questioning the prestige of Iron Arrow at the University of Miami demonstrates a lack of expertise on the topic. Hopefully avoiding a level of sarcasm exhibited by the comments to which I'm responding, yes, in some ways Iron Arrow exceeds the honor of Trustee. Membership in my days there was somewhat mysterious. I still don't know much about how members are selected. At least during the decades of my experience, we did have the impression that the head football coach was subject to running errands for Iron Arrow. It would be quite helpful for editors to demonstrate better knowledge of the topic before continuing to prosecute edit wars. In the meantime, you could refer to or Might be easier to make a case against the prestige of Yale's Skull and Bones Society. I'm not a huge Iron Arrow fan (those thumping drums were so annoying), but they are a fact of life at The U, uh, UM, better make that Suntan U or the University of Miami. Do go be man (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
My comments are not directed toward you personally, but rather to the injudicious use of superlatives like "the university's highest honor," As I understand it, the members are seniors or graduate students and that selection is not based on academic merit. Therefore it belongs in the student life section, not the academic section. Racepacket (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The changes to the text covering Iron Arrow were unnecessary. It is not just open to seniors and graduates. It includes faculty (several of my professors were tapped while I was a student), staff, undergraduate, and graduate students. If it calls itself the highest honor, then we refer to it as the highest honor. The continued edit warring over this and other aspects of the article are getting tiresome. And I am going to find a Suntan U reference in the next hour.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the Medical School is called "Melanoma U", but I can't find references :) Racepacket (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no such name. This is getting highly disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Staff size

Article says 13,000 employees, reference cited in the footnote says over 10,000 and the infobox says "2348 Staff". Which is correct? What reference supports the 13,000 figure? Racepacket (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The 2348 are the full time faculty members. That does not count the staff, etc. that are also covered by the school.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I fixed the infobox, someone did not realize there are separate faculty and staff parameters. I think that the 10,000 might be full time and the 13,000 might be part time. Racepacket (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I found more current figure on linkedin and the University website. There are 732 part-time employees. Racepacket (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Iron Arrow

Just to give everyone fair notice, there is an AfD on Iron Arrow: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Arrow Honor Society Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

D.U.I. Laboratory

The university website says there is a "D.U.I. Laboratory" on the South Campus, but when I search the website for D.U.I., all of the references are for "Driving Under the Influence." What does D.U.I. stand for? Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never even heard of the "South Campus". All I know exists are the Coral Gables campus, the Med School campus, and the RSMAS campus on Virginia Key.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This seems to suggest the normal meaning of "DUI".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Good we will leave it at D.U.I. in the article. I helped develop the first computerized interpreter of GC/Mass Spec data back in the 1970s. At least the EPA is still using it today, and I bet the South Campus lab uses it too. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Research achievements

The article needs some noteworthy research achievements. I came up with Harvey the mannikin that is widely used in Medical Schools, but User:Ryulong objects to that one, and deleted it summarily. We need something because the research coverage is very thin. Racepacket (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're just tacking on trivial information at this point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I can see that others may not agree with Harvey, and I am not pushing that one, but we need more than just the Human Genomics. Eighty years of reseach must have discovered something noteworthy. Racepacket (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Do other university's articles mention every little discovery in their research departments?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I am saying that the WP:UNI guidelines call for "information regarding research expenditures, government support and significant grants (land grant or space grant status, in the U.S. for example), the scale of the physical research plant, and notable research programs." I am not seeking "every little discovery", but rather "notable research programs." Again, I thought that having a U of M developed mannikin used nationwide to teach medicine was good, but I am not pushing it. Racepacket (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a tiny factoid which has no real bearing on the rest of the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the second time you have reverted a research achievement with a "tiny factoid" argument. I thought that an unexpected set of competitively awarded NIH grants which total 1/6 of UM's sponsored research budget would be worth mentioning. Racepacket (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The government puts these grants forth commonly. Unless this particular grant was more important than the others, I don't see a need to include a single sentence about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic ratings

As noted above we need to avoid academic boosterism. WP:UNI's guidelines state, "Refactoring rankings (71st nationally according to the source, but 2nd among colleges in the state) to boost the score constitutes original research and is not permitted. Claims that an institution "ranks highly" or is "highly exclusive" are just as vague as claims that it is "prestigious" and "excellent." Rankings should be neutrally worded without modifiers or disclaimers, represent a comprehensive cross-section of rankings by national and international publications, be limited to a single section in the article, and be reported as numeric values with years and verifiable sources."

Also, it is imporant to separate the ranking of undergraduate business majors from MBA programs. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is something that mentions them, then we'll discuss it. And if something is in the top 10, it "ranks highly".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and if someone wants to edit the ranking discussions further, please do not delete the word "undergraduate" from the description of the business rankings. Racepacket (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not make that edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Correct, and none of these comments were addressed to you. Racepacket (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a very strange development here, regarding the repeated deletion of the Forbes ratings by User:PassionoftheDamon. At the same time that he was deleted it repeatedly here, he was adding Forbes ratings to other college pages. Here is the discussion from his talk page: Is there a reason you keep removing the Forbes ranking mention on the UM article?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Most university articles on Wikipedia don't include the Forbes rankings.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
But we have it. Why should we not list it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
To be consistent with what most other university articles have (e.g., see Florida State, Michigan, Florida, UCLA, USC, George Washington, Georgetown, Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, Duke, etc.). I'd estimate that 70-80% of the articles I surveyed don't include it. The Forbes methodology has also been called into question at several related talk pages, including at our good friend Racepacket's alma mater (where I recently re-added their Forbes ranking after he became so insistent on putting it in the UM article). To me, this feels like just more of Racepacket's UM-related B.S., but if you feel strongly about including it, I'll defer.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He has promiseed to stop. Racepacket (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Miami/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

WP:GACR #5 requires the article to be free of edit wars. Also, the protection is preventing editors from improving the article to GA standards. Feel free to nominate for GAN again in the future.--Edge3 (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Why don't we try to settle our differences before the week is out so that I can renominate the article? Racepacket (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit protected request


Under the Athletics heading, I would like to change

The school colors are orange, green and white, representing the fruit, leaves, and blossoms of the orange tree.


The school colors are orange, green and white, representing the fruit, leaves, and blossoms of the orange tree, respectively.

to clarify the context.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers,  Skomorokh  15:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fulbrights, Guggenheim Fellows, and NSF awardees

We need more specifics on this sentence. There is no citation to a source. Is there one or more than one Fulbright Fellow currently on the faculty? Because nobody knew, I had it read "at least one Fubright, Guggenheim, and NSF Awardee..." Ryulong made it plural, but we don't know if that is the case. Many Universities state the number that they have. Racepacket (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know where you got the text from in the first place. Saying "at least one" is way too specific. Using a plural phrasing adds ambiguity that we do not need to reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for finding the cite to the percentage of faculty with terminal degrees. However, we are still unable to find any cite to the number of faculty with Fulbrights, Guggenheims or NSF awards. We both found some references identifying specific faculty members over the last 10 years as having such awards, but there is no indication that they are still on the faculty. It would be original research to look them up in the faculty directory to verify their current affiliation. Therefore, in the absence of any reference, the sentence has to be deleted. One of the most important points covered in any university article is faculty quality, so I am sorry to see it go. I believe the student/faculty ratio is also relevant and is one (of many possible) measures of educational quality. Racepacket (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The sentence does not need to be deleted just because we cannot find an exact number. It is clear that these people have been on the faculty at some point. Whether they are not currently on the faculty does not mean that this sentence should be removed at all. Other than that, the student:faculty ratio is really trivial, especially when you've tacked it on to the end of a paragraph that uses the same reference. Also use name="whatever" when doing multiple refs. Using name=whatever won't work for two-word names.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. It seems that neither of us can find a source, and I have tried hard. Where did the sentence come from? Was there a statement at one time on the umiami website? I don't think fn 27 is appropriate, because it shows two Guggenheim Fellows in 2003. I can also show Fulbright Scholars in 2005. I am not sure of exact definition of "NSF awardee". Is it principle investigator? The rest is a leap. Racepacket (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the difference between "at least one..." and the use of pluals is that you know there is more than one. It adds specificity, not ambiguity. Racepacket (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother finding active references about this crap and I can't seem to get you to budge on anything. I thought that "at least one" was in no way ambiguous and was limiting. I believe that using plurals leaves ambiguity in that there could be more than one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


To quote User:Ryulong, please don't change long-standing passages by complete deletion without discussing it first. These paragraphs have been there for years. I will try to add more of a transition. Racepacket (talk)

Then add the transition later. These are not "long-standing passages". They are two sentences that are either covered in another part of the article (the UNICCO strike is mentioned in another section) and a sentence that is entirely unsourced. Sure, the presidential debate happened as did the UNICCO strike, but they simply do not fit in with the flow of the section or really matter in the long run for this part of the article. They are part of the history of UMiami but it just does not fit. I would appreciate if you stopped reverting me for the sake of reverting me to make a point about my previous activities, as you clearly state here. And I also never stated anything of that sort. You are putting words in my mouth at this point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I assure you that I am not "reverting [you] for the sake of reverting [you]." The history of the institution does not have to be tied to different Presidents and their priorities. This is apparently a matter of writing style. Flow is not as important in a history section as is the overall organizing principle, in this case chronological. Racepacket (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Rather than engage in an edit war over what is obviously inaccurate information, I have moved the history section to User:Racepacket/UMhistory and suggest we forge a consensus there. Racepacket (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no fucking inaccurate information. Stop screwing with the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have included MiamiDolphins3's edits and moved the consensus history section from User:Racepacket/UMhistory back to the main page. Thank you all for reviewing it. Racepacket (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop it with this bullshit about "consensus history section". We're all trying to improve the article but you keep doing shit to undo all of the improvements we are trying to make. The next time you "revert back to a consensus version" I am going to report the situation to the administration.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Your reorganization of the history section into these paragraphs is not consensus. I propose that we go back to last week's paragraph structure. Racepacket (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You are the only one with an issue with the paragraph structure. No one else. A consensus cannot come about from two people bickering. Having single sentence paragraphs when they can be linked to another paragraph as a whole is pointless.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the City of Miami

The U was chartered in 1925, the same year that Coral Gables was incorporated as a city. I can't quickly find the exact dates to determine which first occurred. It would accurate to refer to Coral Gables as the following:

Do go be man (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Use #2 until definitive verification can be made with precise dates. Perhaps you could further avoid the issue by stating: ..."in what is now known as Miami-Dade County, Florida. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I was troubled by Ryulong's addition of the phrase that it was a part of the City of Miami as well, but was reverted twice. We can always end the sentence after the world Florida and let the geo coordinates and the Coral Gables article speak for themselves.Racepacket (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The Miami metro area consists of several cities and neighborhoods, which include Coral Gables, Hialeah, South Beach, Miami Beach, Homestead, etc. They all share the same area code more or less. That tends to show some sort of organizational level where they are all considered parts of Miami.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The current solution is fine with me, but the main campus was never a part of the "City of Miami" and was founded by the developer of Coral Gables. Racepacket (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I found the actual dates for the charters of UM and The Gables, so boldly edited accordingly. Technically, UM was chartered when the area now known as Coral Gables was part of the City of Miami or unincorporated Dade County. Also altered the reference to "Miami proper" that perhaps implied Coral Gables is not a proper city. As I recall there was some dispute as to whether The Gables is a suburb of Miami. While I was about it, I updated the lead for the paragraph regarding enrollment that redundantly said, "As of 2008... currently enrolls". The grammatic tenses were also mixed. Do go be man (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Gee, I don't know if you want all of that minutia about the founding of CG in the lead. Why not just say:
"The University of Miami (informally referred to as UM, Miami, or The U) is a private, non-sectarian university chartered April 8, 1925. The school's largest campus is located in Coral Gables, Florida within Miami-Dade County while the university's Miller School of Medicine and Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science are located in the adjacent city of Miami." CrazyPaco (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Research blurbs

The more random blurbs about various research facilities that happen to be on either the Coral Gables campus, the Medical campus, the "South Campus" (which I have never heard of before), and the Rosenstiel campus (which has not been touched on at all) all seem to be indiscriminate lists of information. I don't see how mentioning various research projects performed by researchers on campuses that are not the main campus seems to be giving undue weight to projects that probably are not relevant outside UM at this point, especially when most of the references from this section come directly from Do we really need to say how CREATE is helping seniors use computers? Do we really need to say that this project does that and got this much money? I don't think that we should focus on this that much, particularly when there are no scientific articles discussing these activities.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNI guidelines suggests "the scale of the physical research plant, and notable research programs." I agree that we should not force the issue, but if there is research or cooperative extension activity that touches many people and is otherwise notable, we should consider including it in the article. I find that many college main articles have what has been called an "undergraduate bias" because they are written by undergraduates based on what is most evident to undergraduates. So their history and research sections are very weak, and I make a special effort in those areas. Other schools have extensive research coverage. For example, Cornell has the Mars rovers and discovered the rings around the planet Uranus (5 inches of research text) and U of Illinois built the ILLIAC computers (5 inches of text). I am open as to what would be the appropriate research coverage for UM. Racepacket (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
How are these "notable research programs" when all you are writing is a single sentence about the research project with a reference to the main UM website?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)