Jump to content

Talk:University of Mississippi/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

ACT statistics - to include or not?

Here's the text in question:

  • In 2006, the average ACT score of entering freshmen was 23.0, second among the eight public universities in the state, and behind only the 23.3 average of Mississippi State.[1]
  1. ^ http://www.ihl.state.ms.us/research/fast_facts_0607.pdf

I say include it. This is the most recent data available, and it's not that old -- the class entering in 2007 would be the newest if those numbers were out. It's relevant information. Terence7 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than that the data is from 2006, the UM numbers "Excludes the Medical Center", as stated in the cited article. Since all the students from the Medical Center are included in the attendance of UM, this number is not accurate.Jmerchant29 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"Other than that the data is from 2006" is not an argument. 2006 is the most recent year available. It's only 1 year older than the numbers we might hope to have (i.e. for the class entering last fall).
The fact that the Medical Center is excluded from the entering freshman ACT stats is irrelevant. There aren't any freshmen entering the Medical Center. Right? Terence7 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The Medical Center does have freshman entering the program there. In addition to the typical doctor programs which require a degree to enroll, they have a nursing school which you can attend straight from High School. How about, "In 2006, the average ACT score of entering freshmen at the Oxford campus was 23.0." end of sentence? Jmerchant29 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The nursing school only accepts students who've already completed two years of college elsewhere. See [1]. Terence7 (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the nursing school, but the "School of Health Related Professions" does take incoming freshman. How about, "In 2006, the average ACT score of entering freshmen at the Oxford campus was 23.0." end of sentence? That way the ACT score is listed on the site. Jmerchant29 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you're right about the School of Health Related Professions. I'm fine with specifying the Oxford campus, but are we sure that there aren't any freshmen at other campuses, e.g. Tupelo or Senatobia?
And what about the rest of the sentence: " ... second among the eight public universities in the state, and behind only the 23.3 average of Mississippi State." You dropped that part, but I haven't heard any reasons why it should be taken out. It seems useful to have a basis of comparison for the 23.0 average. Terence7 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
With the additional freshmen students at the Medical Center added in, the average could go up or down and the rest of the sentence would be speculation, not fact. Jmerchant29 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. So: "In 2006, the average ACT score of entering freshmen at the University of Mississippi (excluding the School of Health Related Professions at the UM Medical Center) was 23.0." OK? Terence7 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if that is the only school that admits freshman at the Medical Center. How about just "In 2006, the average ACT score of entering freshmen at the University of Mississippi (excluding the UM Medical Center) was 23.0."Jmerchant29 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine. That sounds better anyway. I'm putting it in. Terence7 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mississippi Crisis

As most americans know, there was crisis[2] in the Univ in 1960s. An african american studetn was denied entry to the campus. President Kennedy had to send 400 federal marshals and 3,000 troops to ensure the entry then. Since it is a significant incident it needs to be included in the article. Any takers? Nisrec (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)nisrec

The student referred to in this posting was James Meredith. Mr. Meredith earned a bachelor's degree in Political Science at Ole Miss and was then admitted to the School of Law on the same campus. He graduated from the School of Law in 1971 and was admitted to the bar in the State of Mississippi. Rexrobards (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

As far as I'm aware this university's nickname is Ole Miss not Ole Piss as stated several times in this article, i am fairly sure this is vandalism though I do not know enough about the university to say. I also suspect the section titled "fag life" has been renamed from what it was supposed to be. Zypholus (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was vandalism. I've reverted it back to the original state. Jmerchant29 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about reversion

@HAL333: Hi there! Could you please help me understand what you didn't like about my bot's edit to the article to remove |last=CNN (and make other general fixes at the same time)? You didn't specify a reason when you reverted the edit. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty I want to preface this by thanking you for your work on this bot. The vast majority of its changes were helpful. The only thing I really disagreed with was that it placed comma after a group of references where one shouldn't be. I'm also not a fan of how it put a space before one of the subheadings, but that isn't why I reverted nor a big deal. ~ HAL333 04:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@HAL333: Thanks for your quick response! I don't see where the bot "placed a comma after a group of references". Instead, I see where the bot removed a comma that was after a group of references. I manually updated some references without messing with any commas or spacing. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Ah, my bad. You're right about the comma. It was late... ~ HAL333 15:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@HAL333: Thanks for removing that comma. I ran the general fixes over the article again. It did pus a single blank line between headers per WP:BODY and WP:HEAD, but I won't be upset if you remove them. Since I ran AWB manually, I also fixed some typos in the article. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 10:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Hello HAL333, I will be taking up the review for this article and will present it to you shortly. I hope my feedback will be helpful to you and that I can learn something new in the process. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

  • In the section on "Integration", Paul B. Johnson Jr. is wikilinked twice, the full name is also unnecessary for a second time, Johnson Jr. should suffice. Lieutenant governor is un-capitalised the first time and capitalised the second time, the second mention doesn't seem necessary. As far as I'm aware titles should also be capitalised whenever they come before the name of a person.
Good catch. ~ HAL333 14:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "With the arrival of night and far-right former Major General Edwin Walker, a mob before the Lyceum became violent." This sentence isn't very clear, I would suggest rephrasing.
Rephrased. Does that work? ~ HAL333 16:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
That reads a lot better so yes, it does. Tayi Arajakate Talk 17:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Near the end, the section on oxford campus shifts to referring to the university as Ole Miss. Since this occurs right after the mention of the Ole Miss Union building, I would recommend not referring to the university by its byname as it can sound a bit confusing.
I increased usage so it doesn't pop out as much. ~ HAL333 17:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Could the section on divisions of the university elaborate a bit on the 15 schools? For example, it doesn't even mention 5 of them.
Oops. I missed those. They are in the table now. ~ HAL333 17:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the section on athletics needs a line after the first one mentioning the number of men's and women's teams Ole Miss Rebels has and in which sports.
It already does. ~ HAL333 14:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
HAL333, right did not realise that the line referred to the rebels. In that case, I think the reference for the two sentences could be improved with a secondary source if possible. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "This handbook is still given to students today. I would suggest rephrasing this sentence since it uses a relative time reference.
Done. ~ HAL333 14:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The line currently says, "As of 2021, this handbook is still given to students today." The "today" should be removed. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Never mind, I fixed it myself. It was a minor issues anyways. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Daily Mississippian is still in print today." This line uses a relative time reference as well and seems unnecessary since the next line is in the present tense anyways.
Good point. Removed. ~ HAL333 14:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

  1. Comprehension: The article is well written.
    2. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose is clear, concise and understandable. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The article is compliant with the manual of style. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiability: The article is verifiable.
    3. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The article has a list of references and in-line citations for all its contents. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Sources used are reliable. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No original research found. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No copyright violation or plagiarism was found. Pass Pass
  3. Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive enough.
    4. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article has an adequately broad coverage of all major aspects. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The article is on topic and does not have any unnecessary deviations. Pass Pass
  4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
    5. Pass Pass
    Notes Result
    The article is compliant with the policy on neutral point of view. Pass Pass
  5. Stability: The article is stable.
    6. Pass Pass
    Notes Result
    No ongoing edit warring or content disputes exist. Pass Pass
  6. Illustration: The article is very well illustrated.
    7. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) No copyright issues were found. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Use and captions are good. Pass Pass

RfC: Use of "Ole Miss"

The discussion has run for just shy of 30 days, with no substantive new point made in about two weeks. A request for closure was registered at WP:CR, which brings me here.

The proposal asks if "Ole Miss" should be used in this article outside of certain contexts. In other words, the proposal — constructed as a deonotic expression — would require Ole Miss be used throughout the article, apparently to the exclusion of any other name. Was that the intent? (I may be reading the proposal incorrectly but I don't believe so. Whatever the case, however, the outcome would be the same even if the proposal used a different verb, it would just have taken a slightly different path to get there.)

By head count, eight editors !vote "yes" on the proposal and five editors !vote "no".

Most of the arguments, on both sides, were equally uncompelling. Some of the "no" camp said "Ole Miss" should not be used because it's racist, an argument that failed to effectively cite any guideline or policy that supported that position. Some of the "yes" camp said it was once racist but is no longer racist which, like the argument it was addressing, also failed to cite any guideline or policy.

BSMRD, thankfully, cited WP:WIAN which was a convincing argument as to why Ole Miss should be avoided. However, the other camp then invoked WIAN as an argument as to why it should not be avoided and accompanied that by launching a broadside of RS that recently used it. That was also convincing, more or less.

There is no consensus to adopt the proposal that "..."Ole Miss" [should] be used in this article outside of direct quotes, official names, and discussion of the nickname itself". The failure of the proposal means that editors are free to use "University of Mississippi", "the university", or any other reliably sourced name in the article (including Ole Miss). (If the RfC were constructed to be exclusive of the term Ole Miss, versus exclusive of all terms other than Ole Miss, the outcome would be the same as there is, similarly, no consensus on the other side.) Chetsford (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the university's nickname byname, "Ole Miss", be used in this article outside of direct quotes, official names, and discussion of the nickname itself? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Background

In this thread from two months ago and a recently concluded peer review, an argument has been presented that we should, where possible, avoid using the university's nickname byname because it is racist. As this article has been prepared for an FAC just begun, the issue has been contentious. I am opening this RfC in a moderator capacity as a member of WikiProject Higher education at the joint request of the two main parties to the dispute. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Modified terminology per below 17:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • No The sources in this article clearly document the history and meaning of the university's nickname so editors cannot claim ignorance of those facts. There are places in this article where we must use the nickname, particularly in discussions of the nickname itself and in the parts of the article that discuss the institution's history and the places where the nickname remains in use e.g., the athletic teams. But when we have a choice - when the text does not require the use of the nickname - there is no acceptable reason for editors to use a phrase that we know is racist. Nothing in our policies - WP:CENSORSHIP, WP:5P, etc. - demands that we gratuitously use racist language when it's not necessary and we can employ editorial discretion to use other language that is equally clear and precise. ElKevbo (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    How exactly is it "racist" to say "Ole Miss"? It's a term that refers to the school, not something racial. Buffs (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
If you're unwilling or unable to read and understand the sources cited in this article about the term, the history of race relations at this specific institution, and the broader history of race relations in the United States, especially the Deep South, then there's nothing I can do to help you. If you're unwilling to make an extremely easy change to this article that does nothing to change its accuracy or comprehensibility but avoids the use of a phrase rooted in the enslavement of human beings then I have little desire to try to help you. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the place for WP:ADVOCACY or to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Let's follow what reliable sources say, and reliable sources do use "Ole Miss". And in this article, Ole Miss refers to the school, nothing more. Some1 (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong yes Even if it may cause offense to some, it should not be censored per WP:CENSORED. The name is not informal. It is used in its website (olemiss.edu) and emails (@olemiss.edu). The student union building is called the Ole Miss Union. In common usage, the two-syllable "Ole Miss" is less awkward then the 11-sylable "The University of Mississippi". One could even make the case per WP:COMMONNAME that it should be the article's title.
The view that Ole Miss should not be used is an extreme minority view in published sources. Accordingly, removing it would violate WP:NPOV. High quality literary sources refer to the university by Ole Miss. For example, see the Pulitzer Prize winning The Race Beat written by veteran journalists who could hardly be described as racist. All high quality reliable sources use "Ole Miss" interchangeably to refer to the university. They often even use "Ole Miss" in the title instead of the full name. Here's a collection of recent articles.
You get the gist. They use it interchangeably and maybe even more often than the full name. We are summarizing reliable sources. As long as the vast majority use the term, so should Wikipedia per our policies.
It should also be noted that of the few high quality reliable sources that have published pieces criticizing the nickname, none have called it racist. They have qualified it as having a racist origin. In its usage and context, there is no mention of race. For examples of its usage in the real world, see the image gallery or these images of Civil Rights hero James Meredith or Morgan Freeman decked out in Ole Miss merch. ~ HAL333 14:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Usage of Ole Miss examples
After further thought, I want to pile on some more policy-based arguments. Per, WP:WIAN a name can be considered widely accepted if reliable sources like the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and scholarly books and articles use it. And all of those do use "Ole Miss". Furthermore, there is a wide precedent in usage to use short bynames within college articles. There's nothing different about "Ole Miss". ~ HAL333 14:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I looked at about a half of the examples above - all of them used the full name as default WITHIN the article, using 'Ole Miss' only in the headline or in very limited contexts. This is like arguing that "The Donald' should be the default name for an ex-president, simply because the use is common in particular contexts. Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Your arguments are beginning to conflict themselves. You have stated that "Ole Miss" is an obscure term that most readers will not be familiar with, and now you are saying that reliable sources use "Ole Miss" in the title for familiarity and as an attention-grabber. What gives? And, that's cherrypicking. Every single Associated Press (a publication considered to have the utmost professionalism and neutrality) article listed above heavily uses "Ole Miss" within. ~ HAL333 13:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Mostly no: Ole Miss is a nickname, and the university is more likely to be referred to as the University of Mississippi in sources. I know WP:NICKNAME refers to bios, but I think it is relevant here because it asks editors to refer to people by the name used most often in sources. University of Mississippi is more likely to be used, so the use of Ole Miss should be limited. There are other pronouns that can replace Ole Miss to vary the writing, such as "The university" or "The institution" which will make the article easier to read to users who skim the article and overlook that the university is also named Ole Miss. For athletic teams and other clubs, the Ole Miss name might be used more often in sources which, in my opinion, would permit greater usage in those sections, but for generally talking about the university, it should not be used. My opinion is not based on the origin of the name or the opinions of the sources on the name's usage. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The reader is intelligent enough to understand that a single institution can be referred to with multiple names. Reliable sources like The New York Times and The Washington Post clearly recognize that. ~ HAL333 17:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
You and I have both extensively documented our positions on this question. Please allow others to express theirs without having to defend them if they hold one that differs from your own. ElKevbo (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
He's allowed to respond if he finds something lacking in such an argument. I, for example, find the argument "University of Mississippi is more likely to be used" not very compelling. I went to Texas A&M University in College Station. We call it A&M for short. Many schools have such abbreviations. Virginia Polytechnic -> Virginia Tech, The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina -> The Citadel, etc. These are the effective common name of the school. To insinuate that any usage of this is racist just because at one time it had a connotation outside of this school is absurd. Tons of terms that are now benign have terms were associated with racism at some point in the past. That does not make their usage now racist; that's an insane standard. Buffs (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Buffs: An example that I think follows a similar argument to yours is Université du Québec à Montréal, also known as UQAM. It is called UQAM in government documents, academic journals, and has a metro station named after it called Berri–UQAM station. In its article, I support only referring to the university as UQAM (except in the lede, because the long name should be given) as it keeps the name of the university simple and consistent. I hold the same feelings with this article; it needs to pick one name for the university and stick with it. Tayi mentions below that the university is rarely referred to as UofM, so that's not feasible. I am not convinced that Ole Miss is used in academic journals and government documents, so I prefer University of Mississippi over Ole Miss. If Ole Miss is chosen, that should be the only proper noun used to refer to this institution. Again, this opinion has nothing to do with the history of the name. Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Although I think this should ultimately be decided by local consensus, some articles like Washington, D.C. refer to the article subject with multiple different names throughout. But then again, I see other articles doing the opposite in the same situation. I guess it's a case of "The Devil can cite the Scripture for his own purpose." when it comes to the precedents regarding nick/bynames. ~ HAL333 02:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@HAL333: I agree that readers are smart and can usually understand when a different name is used for something. However, I think to biographies, which for the most part pick one name to refer to someone by (usually their last name) and only use that name to refer to that person. I think it's better that one name for the university be used throughout the article, instead of switching back-and-forth between University of Mississippi and Ole Miss. Since University of Mississippi is the formal name of this institution, it should be favoured over the byname (with some exceptions, like in discussions of the nickname and the athletics section). Once again, my opinion did not take into consideration the history of the byname. Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I understand where you're coming from. ~ HAL333 02:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes Well, I'll hop in. While the term might have had an origination outside what would be acceptable in modern society, the fact is that the term itself is not used to refer to women in that manner any more. The English language changes over time. Now, "Ole Miss" refers to the school, not a racist throwback to the days of slavery (it is almost never used in that context...it's used to refer to the school). We cannot take every word in the English language and refuse to use it because it has something "icky" in its past. Buffs (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes per the recent and reliable sources provided by HAL333. Some1 (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • No - mostly (Summoned by bot) but absolutely nothing to do with any racist connotations (which I barely understand as a UK person). The logic of use of nicknames appears to be that we use a nickname, professional name, informal form etc when to do otherwise would be perversely unfamiliar and pedantic, (Marilyn Monroe, John Wayne, Bill Clinton) not simply when a nickname exists and is often used by an 'in' group, such as Big Blue. The other form, we simply note. Would 'Ole Miss' be the appropriate name for the article? If not then why use it within the article? There is a perverse familiarity to using the nickname for an academic institution, as if we are all alumni or have some relationship to the place - as there would be to writing about 'Bill' , Marilyn, John, rather than Clinton, Monroe, Wayne. There are nicknames for UK universities and well-known private schools - they are often used within sporting and such contexts and among those already familiar with the institutions. But it would be inapt and unhelpful IMO to do other than note that the nickname exists in the lead, and record its origins, the contexts in which it is used etc in the body. Other than that, "the University" or "Mississippi", or an abbreviation, or whatever is the convention for US universities should be the norm in the body. I endorse the logic of Z1720 on almost everything including that the 'formal-ish' name should be default, but there may be good reason to use 'Ole Miss' in sporting, or similar, contexts if that is the norm, not simply common. I also endorse Z1720's implied point that the present constant switching between the two is somewhat bizarre in its effect on an unfamiliar reader. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: I looked at about a half of the examples given further up - all of the ones I was able to read used the full name as default WITHIN the article, but used 'Ole Miss' in the headline or in some very limited contexts, when talking about controversies for example. So the examples given tend to prove my point IMO, that the nickname is just that, an attention grabber, not a normal, neutral term. What is being proposed is similar to saying that "The Donald' should be the default name for an ex-president, or Red Ken, for this former London Mayor just because 'headline-y' or other particular usage is common.Pincrete (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Does the Associated Press use "The Donald" in its titles? No. ~ HAL333 13:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No Leaving aside the origins of the name (which are largely irrelevant, as this is a style question) there is no case where using the nickname is a superior alternative to using the official name, or just "The University", as this is an article about the University of Mississippi. As an example, why are we saying "Ole Miss is classified among "R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity"." when we could say "The University of Mississipi is classified among "R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity"." which is what the Carnegie Classification actually says? WP:WIAN should be applied here, reliable academic and otherwise neutral sources don't call it "Ole Miss", and neither should we. It can be used in quotations and when specifically talking about the nickname, otherwise it should be "The University of Mississippi". Reading this article, the constant usage of the nickname feels overly familiar and against the encyclopedic tone Wikipedia strives for. BSMRD (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment about usage in academic sources @BSMRD: As multiple users have mentioned it, I feel it is necessary to give an overview of the usage of "Ole Miss" in academic and government sources:
  • Academic Journals:
  • Academic books (in addition to The Race Beat):
  • The Battle of Ole Miss: Civil Rights v. States' Rights published by Oxford University Press
  • The Campus Color Line: College Presidents and the Struggle for Black Freedom published by Princeton University Press (term used in book)
  • The Price of Defiance : James Meredith and the Integration of Ole Miss published by University of North Carolina Press
  • James Meredith and the Ole Miss Riot: A Soldier's Story published by University Press of Mississippi
  • The Egg Bowl: Mississippi State vs. Ole Miss published by University Press of Mississippi
  • Redefining Liberal Arts Education in the Twenty-First Century published by University Press of Mississippi (uses term in book)
  • Assassins, Eccentrics, Politicians, and Other Persons of Interest: Fifty Pieces from the Road published by University Press of Mississippi (uses term in book)
  • Government uses

We have the academic press of Oxford, UNC, and Princeton; peer-reviewed journals; and endless government sources. What else is needed? ~ HAL333 02:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a very clear commonality in these sources, which is using the name in relation to the institution's history with Civil Rights (I am not counting the sources published by the University itself, as an increased level of familiarity is expected that doesn't apply to our article, but the theme persists even there). Indeed, several seem to be using it not in reference to the University at large, but rather the "Ole Miss Riot", and the institution at that time. Perhaps usage could be warranted in the corresponding section of our article, but I do not see why we need to use what is clearly a controversial nickname in contravention of the encyclopedic tone Wikipedia strives for, when we could simply use the actual name of the University. BSMRD (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Edit: I messed up my own edit ping @HAL333:BSMRD (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Simply declaring something "controversial" doesn't make it so. It's rather conclusively a VERY common term, regardless of how someone came up with it and, even if the connotation of its creation had a racial/racist component, it clearly doesn't have such a connotation today unless someone wants to impart such a connotation. You stated " WP:WIAN should be applied here, reliable academic and otherwise neutral sources don't call it 'Ole Miss'" when, in fact, they do (as HAL333 so conclusively showed). The underlying claim of your rationale has no merit. Buffs (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Ole Miss should obviously be included in the article. I'm not even sure why this is an issue. As to There is a very clear commonality in these sources, which is using the name in relation to the institution's history with Civil Rights I don't think sources such as [3] or [4] are anywhere near that context (Ole Miss seems to be used heavily in sports), but there's also this college guide, and many others. WP:NOTWOKE, WP:NOTCENSORED, etc. This is an extremely common name for the university, and even if some view it as having unpleasant historical connections doesn't mean we should whitewash it. Hog Farm Talk 03:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Courtesy pinging the prior participants in discussions on this topic, HAL333, ElKevbo, and Eccekevin, and recent GA reviewer Tayi Arajakate. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for the ping, this is interesting and I don't really know where I stand on this one. I would agree with HAL333 that we should not censor a term just because some consider it to be racist when such treatment is not reflected in the sources. They are right that high quality reliable sources regardless of their general editorial position use the term quite frequently to refer to the university. It is also not an informal name and is used in an official capacity, it acts as a convenient abbreviation. Although I do not agree that its use in the article needs to be proportionally weighed with its use in the sources, we don't need to represent the language of the sources, only their viewpoints. Say for example, if recent publications were to start refraining from using it over its racist origins, I would support restricting its use despite older ones using it. But they haven't and it's not our job to start such a process. That said, I do think the article uses it a bit too often and I think Z1720 does make a decent point with the caveat that its in bold in the lead so it is hard to miss, but it's still possible. I am not happy with substitutes like "the university" or "the institution" though, generally university articles tend to use acronyms but I have not seen a single "UoM" being used in the sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
It's in the bold in the lede because it's a redirect to this article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
It's bold because it's a notable name by which the university is also referred to. If we were bolding redirects we would have 17 bolded names. ~ HAL333 21:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
That's wrong. I encourage you to review our Manual of Style. ElKevbo (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
What's "wrong" with it? Buffs (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing in the MoS that says that we should use bold solely to highlight "notable name[s]" or anything similar. In fact, it specifically tells us to "[a]void using boldface for emphasis in article text." However, it does tell us that bolding is "done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections..." Editors often don't adhere to the MoS, by choice or ignorance, but in my experience we do a pretty good job of adhering to these particular parts of the manual with bold text being pretty rare in most articles except for the situations highlighted by this part of the MoS. ElKevbo (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
You're quite adept at gaslighting and putting up straw men/knocking them down. No one said "we should use bold solely to highlight notable names" or "for emphasis in article text". Likewise, you're contradicting yourself. You stated "It's in the bold in the lede because it's a redirect to this article.". Hal333 stated "It's bold because it's a notable name by which the university is also referred to." Then you go act as if "[it's] done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead)" isn't exactly what HAL333 is referring to and indirectly accuse him of failing to follow the MoS "by choice or ignorance". Seriously, I don't know what's going on here, but this isn't normal/healthy debate. Please dial it back and stick to the facts. Buffs (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: This may be a little late but I just noticed this. The use of "nickname" in the RfC opening suggests that it is not formal or directly used by the university itself. Could you change it to the more neutral "byname" instead per Britannica and many others. Thanks. ~ HAL333 16:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary classifies wikt:byname as archaic, but it seems to get the point across just as well, so sure, I'll switch to that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I mantain my position and agree with HAL. It's a notable name, used probably more often than 'The University of Mississippi'. The simple fact that some people consider it offensive does not mean we should remove it. This is a textbook case of Wikipedia is not censored. Quote:Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. So the question is, is Ole Miss appropriate in this context? The answer seems yes. This might change in the future if the University stops using it and it is supplanted by 'university of Mississippi' or UoM as the most common name for it, but we're far from that case. Right now the only objection brought up is 'it's objectionable to some so let's substitute it' but that again is against policy. In the same way, we use Penn and MIT as shorthand in those pages, there is no reason not to do it here. Eccekevin (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
No one has said that the nick-name is offensive - they say inappropriately familiar, just as Jimmy would be inapt as the normal term for this politician. An Oxford Univ Press book title is cited above using the "Ole Miss" as somehow proof of the normality of the nick-name's use. That of course isn't an apt analogy, since a book title frequently prefers 'catchiness' to clarity and may deliberately avoid formality. The REAL question is when OUP has to credit or acknowledge an academic within one of its books - or cite or quote such an academic, does it use University of Mississippi, or "Ole Miss"? That is normal usage when addressing a general audience, use in specific context, especially when addressing those already "in the know", proves almost nothing. What's the advantage when you could just say "the university" or "it" after first use? Most Oxford colleges have nicknames - apart from the inaptness of using them in a WP article/semi formal context, the names could just as well be Chinese to non-afficianados. Pincrete (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I just checked my personal copy, and the Oxford University Press-published book uses "Ole Miss" instead of the University of Mississippi almost every single time. If you want to partly verify click here. ~ HAL333 15:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Pincrete No one has said that the nick-name is offensive To the contrary, ElKevbo has explicitly said it's racist Buffs (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
HAL333, you just checked your personal copy of ONE BOOK, that is specifically about the most notorious incident in the Univ's history, the battle which is almost always referred to by the nickname, and almost all the mentions in the book are referring to that battle - that isn't what I asked for. What I said was when OUP (or for that matter any academic publisher) wants to cite, credit or refer to any individual academic, or academic dept. - in an academic work or general context - what term do they use? Why would we not do the same? Buffs, OK one editor (which btw does not constitute "some people") thinks the term is racist or may have racist connotations, which AFAI can see no editors here have taken very seriously as a proposition. What I have said is that it is "inappropriately familiar" - others have used arguments which are similar. I think that the nickname adds a needless layer of confusion (to those of us not familiar with it) and has no significant informational or other advantage AFAI can see. Record that it exists, but don't use it as default. Put simply, why use a different term within the article to the actual name of the article - especially when it isn't an obvious recognisable 'short form'? Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Most uses of "Ole Miss" are within the context of integration, but that's because most of what has been published about the university is within the context of integration. The riot is the most notable part of the university's history and is heavily documented in reliable sources. You can't fault me that Oxford has not published a book about the food and residential amenities on campus. Reliable sources are not less likely to use the term when discussing things other than integration. The NYT uses the term in articles about LGBTQ issues. The Los Angeles Times and CNN and Time and USA Today use it in the context of cannabis production. And, I don't know what kind of special unprofessional incestuous relationship that the University of Mississippi has with highly reliable publications like The New York Times and The Washingon Post that allows the latter to heavily use "Ole Miss" in their writing. Could you explain that one to me? I also feel sorry for the millions who read and watch ESPN and have no idea that Ole Miss and the University of Mississippi are one and the same. May I also ask you if you plan to open a centralized discussion to eliminate usage of bynames for all universities? If Ole Miss is not appropriate, then why not demand Wikipedia stop using Caltech, Penn, and The Citadel? Can you show me "Caltech" being used in a highly formal academic context? ~ HAL333 18:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I was brought here to answer an RfC - before doing so I read the article and looked at the references. Apart from the refs to "Battle of … ", most of the texts appeared to be addressing an already familiar audience - an audience equivalent to one that might in the UK recognise what "the light Blues" were, or the nicknames of many UK private schools, colleges, universities, theatres etc etc etc. I wasn't asked to make a general ruling about US universities - though Penn for example is a fairly simple, easy to absorb abbreviation - 'Ole Miss' isn't. Reading the article, the usage seemed bizarre, artificially informal and frankly off-putting. It detracted from any clarity of communicating info about - what is presumably - a serious educational institution. Maybe my reaction seems snobbish - so be it. What I'll happily point out to you is that almost all your sources are US. WP is written - in theory at least - for a global English speaking audience. Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Beyond Reuters and the BBC (both of which have used "Ole Miss" to refer to the university), I can't really find any non-US sources on the University of Mississippi. I guess the opposite is true in American sources for regional universities in Britain or India. ~ HAL333 22:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Pincrete saying that using the name Ole Miss is like calling Jimmy Carter just Jimmy is absolutely a false equivalence and really really bad reasoning. Ole Miss is a widely used name in official capacity by the university (it's its website olemiss.edu) and it is widely used by secondary sources (more than University of Mississippi). Moreover, university nicknames and bynames (like Penn for University of Pennsilvania, Cal for Berkley etc) are absolutely used throughout all sources and also Wikipedia. The Jimmy Carter analogy is really bad logic that does not help your case.
More importantly, the point of the matter is not about the use of nicknames, but on the racist aspect of the nickname. You cal scroll up to the prompt for the RfC and the thread that prompted it and see that no where are we discussing the viability of Ole Miss as a nickname/byname, that's not the point. Eccekevin (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed. A mere accusation of "That's racist" all too often substitutes for logic these days. There's only a tangential relation to anything even remotely close to racism and after that initial usage, any intent of a racist term evaporated over a century ago. Literally no one uses it as a racist term. Buffs (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Eccekevin, the racism aspect is not mentioned in the RfC question, so you can hardly fault me for .... errr addressing the RfC question. I appear to be one of several who have addressed the RfC question rather than some other question about the racism of the name. The short answer about the racism of the name is that, (as a UK person), I don't understand why this name is or was deemed racist, but, in general, it's for the Univ and US media to regulate such matters not WP. So racist/not racist has no bearing either way on my post, where I already say this.
My Carter analogy was fine but a better one might be to refer to "Ol' Blue Eyes". A nickname rendered in a faux-phonetic form is still a nickname rendered in a faux-phonetic form regardless of how widespread the use and it would set the wrong tone to use it as default in any article IMO. WP addresses a global readership unfamiliar with US nicknames, US media (and even more so, US sports pages) address a US audience/sports audience, who may well like the 'clubbiness' of using a nickname. So the examples of use don't have much bearing either IMO, they just prove that it is a widely used, commonly understood nickname in certain contexts in the US. I still don't think such use is apt on WP, since it pointlessly adds a layer of puzzlement TO ME as to why a WP article is using this bizarre, inappropriately familiar, faux-phonetic nickname, when it could easily just say "the universtity" or "it". Matters of style are ultimately matters of judgement as to what imparts information most clearly and sets the right tone. To me this simply sets the wrong tone and thus stands in the way of clearly imparting information. Use in specific sections (such as if their sports teams use this name) is apt, but the default should be to refer to it as what it is - a university - if there isn't a widely used or easily understood shortform (such as Penn). Pincrete (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
That's still a false analogy. Do The New York Times, Associated Press, and academic journals and books use "Ol' Blue Eyes" interchangably with "Sinatra"? No. Would they typically publish works with titles only referencing "Ol' Blue Eyes"? No. And if you're concerned about whether Ole Miss is "widely used", feel free to look over the long list of high quality reliable sources above. Furthermore, could you point me to this Wikipedia policy about "clubiness"? I have never heard of it. ~ HAL333 13:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Old Miss and White Supremacy

Although many elite US colleges have roots in slavery, the University of Mississippi continues to possess and hold onto strong elements of white supremacy. I propose that there be a section on historical, cultural, and structural roots of white supremacy at the school.--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure a whole section is due. Nor would it conform with WP:UNIGUIDE. It's best for flow and coherency to have the relevant information on racism in the appropriate sections. I am not opposed to some of your recent edits, but some of the specifics may be more appropriate at the subarticle History of the University of Mississippi. ~ HAL333 02:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Old Miss is not just a bastion of white supremacy in terms of its symbols (e.g. nicknames like "Old Miss" and "rebels," racist flags, emblems, and stained glass, a 30-foot Confederate statue to honor the victory over Reconstruction) or even its hiring and firing of professors. To give readers an idea about how white supremacy is embedded in the school and in this article, the article states that about 24 percent of the student population is "minority." The other side of the coin is that Old Miss is 75 percent white, and 12.5 percent black, in a state that is 38 percent black. White supremacy is so strong that in order to feel safe, black students at Old Miss have to create a counter spaces. [1]--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, that's your opinion. WP:NOTWOKE, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, et al apply in spades here.
Pointing out the discrepancy between population and school population based on race is misleading. In fact, based on applications, blacks are OVERrepresented by acceptance. That's not racism or white supremacy. Likewise, students CHOSE to form a racially exclusive club; they didn't have to do anything. Lastly, your source is little more than a lengthy opinion piece. That it was a dissertation is pathetic. Your whole point of view is anti-racist in nature. If it's so prevalent, it should be in other non-advocacy, secondary sources. Buffs (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
More importantly, we follow sources and do not do original research. Also, having a whole section dedicated to 'white supremacy' rather than discussing it in the history section or where else appropriate (and hence making this article different from every other university article) sounds quite drastic, and would need drastic treatment in the sources to excuse it. I do not see it so far in any source. Again, this whole can be treated in the article if appropriately sourced, but I see no reason or rationale for a separate section. Eccekevin (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ford, Drew. "Black Space On A White Campus; Exploring The Relationship Between African American Students And The Physical Structure Of The University Of Mississippi". egrove.olemiss.edu. University of Mississippi. Retrieved 2 August 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Mississippi/Archive_2&oldid=1044957327"