Talk:University of Missouri

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

Name Change[edit]

I propose that the name of the page be changed from the University of Missouri–Columbia to the University of Missouri. This following the name change that the university recently officially made. Mitchell3417 (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the deal between the Missouri University system and MU was that MU would officially go by University of Missouri-Columbia, but would be able to go by University of Missouri in school literature and admissions, etc. "For purposes of official correspondence, first reference to the UM campus in Columbia shall be to the University of Missouri-Columbia. Second and subsequent references may be to the University of Missouri, MU or Mizzou. In recognition of the historic status of the Columbia campus as the first campus to bear the name of the University of Missouri, the University of Missouri-Columbia may use the form ‘University of Missouri’ in written communications (print and electronic) relating to student and faculty recruitment, advancement (fundraising, alumni relations, marketing), intercollegiate athletics, and other similar public relations functions."[1] EDIT, forgot to sign Candidesgarden (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If you read the archives, you'll see that means that the university gets to change its name, except on legal documents.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I am adamantly opposed to having another go-around about the name of the university or this article. Nothing has changed between now and when we had a lengthy argument about it back in November/December, right after the name "restoration" was announced. Please see the archived talk page.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 13:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You'll find, Mitchell, that the name issue is complex and consensus is hard to reach. Lazytigers suggestion to read the archives is a good idea, just so you get an idea of the inertia behind the last consensus. I remember writing that at some point moving the page would become necessary, I'm not entirely sure we're ready to make that move yet. But do consider these things: That the sign-age on MUs campus and road signs in Columbia and on I-70 have all been changed to read "University of Missouri" and the only place I've found "University of Missouri–Columbia" used is in system publications. That said we've already agreed that the most common name MU possesses is "University of Missouri" so I'm not sure that the sign-age changes anything. I've always thought the move was necessary and obvious, but I don't want to shatter a previous practical consensus. I'll do a little more research before I come out with an opinion.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support on basis that it is the most commonly used name. The –Columbia suffix does not add anything given there is already a disambiguation statement below. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support per Wikipedia:Naming Conventions...based solely on the fact that this is what the university calls its-self and is by all accounts the most common name for the institution. Also that the use of "University of Missouri" is virtually restricted referring to Mizzou by the University of Missouri System Board of Curators.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support per Wikipedia:Naming Conventions...based solely on the fact that this is what the university calls its-self and is by all accounts the most common name for the institution. Under the name restoration, the "-Columbia" only needs to be used for official documents such as financial documents, contracts, etc. "University of Missouri" is to be used in all other situations relating to marketing, web presence, athletics, other general uses, etc. Wikipedia is to use the most common name, and Wikipedia is clearly not an official university legal or financial document. BlueGold73 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing has changed since we last argued and decided about this issue. Furthermore, Wikipedia's naming conventions do not clearly support this move; the conventions are as convoluted, open-ended, and subject to interpretation as our argument itself. One thing is clear, to me at least: if a name is contested, it is prudent to keep the clarifying element. The wishes of Mizzou's administration and marketing efforts notwithstanding, the official name of the university has not changed, nor is it incorrect to continue using "–Columbia". The UM System, despite its stated intention to the contrary, continues to regularly refer to itself as the University of Missouri, as well. The Mizzou article has already been given enormous ownership of the generic name by way of the redirect. It does not deserve, nor does it in reality have, complete and unfettered ownership of the generic name. This leaves us exactly where we ended 6 months ago, and why I absolutely do not support this move.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes, "University of Missouri" almost always refers to the Columbia campus, and I agree with the supporting arguments of the pro-name-changers above. But, like Lazytiger says, nothing has changed since we hashed this over at length last fall. There's no point of having a big debate — not to mention going to mediation — if someone on the losing side can reject the consensus and start the debate all over again. Even though I was in favor of changing the article name, I respect the decision that we all reached, and we must stand by it. Dmp348 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would assume that we weren't all involved in the debate and reaching whatever the consensus was last fall. Obviously new parties are coming forward in support of the name change for us to be in this situation. So even though you all reached a decision then, people getting involved in the current debate may not have had a part in that decision, so I don't see why they would have to stand by it. BlueGold73 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, so when a court comes to a decision about a case, I don't have to abide by it as long as I wasn't involved? Somehow I don't think that's quite how precedence works. The only grounds for an appeal is a procedural error or new evidence, neither of which we have here.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 01:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I know nobody is looking forward to broaching the subject again, but Mitchell was certainly not breaking any Wikipedia rules by bringing it up again. After all we all seem to be "abiding" by the consensus even if we are discussing changing it. One would be breaking the rule if they changed it without forming a new consensus, however as long as this stays on the talk page, there is no reason not to talk about it. There was also nothing in the old agreement that said this should never come up again, I said it probably would. Regardless it has and it is upon us now so we might as well examine things critically. As far as new has been telling how fast the use of the -Columbia suffix fell out of use, both on the web and on MU's campus. Also it seems to be a weekly occurrence that an anon changes the name in the infobox, this of course, has been quickly reverted by myself, Lazytiger, Wordbuilding, and other users per the last discussion. Anyways, articles that link to University of Missouri are being created nearly everyday, and that redirect actually has more pages linking to it that University of Missouri–Columbia does, even after I changed about 300 last year to point straight to University of Missouri–Columbia. It is a little confusing that there is a redirect to this page, but that this page can't be moved there. -Grey Wanderer | Talk 02:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Confusion of course is not the intent of the redirect; it is simply a subtle distinction that in my opinion makes Mizzou's de facto ownership of the name slightly less condescending to the other campuses and the system. It appears, however, that that subtlety is being lost on this audience.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 03:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I think I understand better where your coming from now. I am rather hasty when I read comments, I thought you were contested the de facto thing. I think where we differ in opinion is how to deal with the issue in a way that respects all viewpoints, including the strong viewpoints that the faculty and staff of other system schools (particularly UMSL and UMKC). I do understand the fear and opposition of these parties, even while I think it is irrational. I think that the page can be located at the University of Missouri namespace without making a comment on the politics but on usage. I have always stated my support of the move is chiefly out of practicality and conciseness. Would the page to be move, I think it would be important to, "teach the controversy" as they say, right on the MU page with a well-sourced and neutral summary. I would also think that if the page is moved an "otheruses" template should be employed linking to the System page similar to the current link. -Grey Wanderer | Talk 03:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To me it's not an issue of rationality or irrationality, it's all semantic pettiness. I have a hard time truly supporting any side. In the end, I don't care where the page goes; I'm just trying not to show any favoritism to my alma mater. I may in fact be trying too hard in this regard.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, at least for now. The way I see it, it makes sense to leave the page here until the "University of Missouri" name has become unambiguously synonymous with the Columbia campus, and the term "University of Missouri-Columbia" has essentially fallen out of use. In my judgement this hasn't happened yet -- for example, take a look at the list of University departments at and note that about half of them (very roughly speaking) still use "-Columbia" on their websites. When the "name restoration" was announced, the campus administration made it clear that they weren't going to be spending any money up front on changing signage, stationery, etc., and that things like that would simply be changed when it came time to replace them. (Contrast with UMR/Missouri S&T, which went on an aggressive campaign of rebadging/re-signing, changing its Internet domain name, etc.) So the entire "change" is taking place gradually, and I don't think we've quite reached the (admittedly nebulous) tipping point.

    But, as the kids say: meh.
    Adam (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The MU change didn't necessitate an aggressive re-branding campaign because, for the most part, the "-Columbia" wasn't a part of every day usage anyway. Students, faculty, staff, recruiters, donors, most of the general public, etc., referred to the school as the "University of Missouri", "Mizzou", or "MU". Any "-Columbia" or UMC references had fallen out of favor and general use long before the name restoration. The official university editorial style guidelines state "The four universities in the System are identified as followed:
  • University of Missouri (MU or Mizzou, not UMC)
  • University of Missouri–Kansas City (UMKC)
  • Missouri University of Science and Technology (MS&T)
  • University of Missouri–St. Louis (UMSL)
In the cases above, use an en dash (medium dash; see dashes) rather than a hyphen when possible: University of Missouri–St. Louis." BlueGold73 (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the assertion that "-Columbia" has fallen out of general use, though it may depend on one's definition of "general use". As I said above, roughly half of the departments still use "-Columbia" on their websites. The parking pass that I picked up today came with an information sheet printed on stationery that says "-Columbia". One wall in the food court of Brady Commons is (if I'm not mistaken -- don't make it over there as often as I used to) still painted with large letters that say "Columbia". The Maneater's about page describes it as the official student newspaper of "-Columbia". Of course, every one of those things will likely be changed/replaced in the relatively near future, but my essential point is that MU signs, documents, etc. that say "-Columbia" remain quite common. I think Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should reflect written usage (not spoken usage where, as it happens, "-Columbia" was never widely used to begin with), and stick with the less ambiguous name until the name change process is essentially complete -- and my sense is that it is not yet "essentially complete". (But this is certainly a judgement call, so I have a hard time getting too worked up about it.) Adam (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Here is the full text of the editorial guildlines page found here:
System, University of Missouri—The first reference to the four-campus University System (Columbia, Kansas City, Rolla and St. Louis) should be University of Missouri System. Thereafter use UM System, University System or University (with uppercase U). Uppercase System when used alone.
The four universities in the System are identified as followed:
  • University of Missouri (MU or Mizzou, not UMC)
  • University of Missouri–Kansas City (UMKC)
  • Missouri University of Science and Technology (MS&T)
  • University of Missouri–St. Louis (UMSL)
In the cases above, use an en dash (medium dash; see dashes) rather than a hyphen when possible: University of Missouri–St. Louis. For more information, see the Collected Rules and Regulations of the UM System: Chapter 170.060 university identification and symbols.
Also of note is this this link on the system website detailing University Identification and Symbols. Until now I didn't realize that MU may also identify itself as the "University of Missouri" on official and legal documents provided they first clarify that they are talking about the "University of Missouri–Columbia." This is about as damming evidence as I can provide. -Grey Wanderer | Talk 06:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to be coy, but I've known all of that all along. The only reason I like the redirect is because of my statement above about condescension to the other campuses. I do think there's still a significant number of instances in which "–Columbia" appears, but I'm sure the number will go nowhere but down as time passes. I agree that it's inevitable, but Wikipedians tend to be overly anxious to make such changes. And on an unrelated note, but happens to be another one of my pet peeves, I see the Mizzou Office of Communications now mentions using an en dash rather than a hyphen! I wonder if my bitching to them had anything to do with that. Oh, well—just in time for it to be irrelevant to Mizzou's own name. I see at least one reason to take any of these suggestions with a grain of salt, though: Mizzou recommends using "MS&T" but the school itself prefers that you not abbreviate beyond "Missouri S&T". Not saying everyone has to abide by whatever rules; it just illustrates that each school might have conventions differing from the other schools in question. Just as UMKC and UMSL (and even the UM System, though maybe not anymore) recommend using UMC for Mizzou, but of course Mizzou hates that.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 13:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain how you interpret Wikipedia:Naming Conventions as supporting your conclusion? I'm not being at all sarcastic here -- it's just that in repeated debates over this issue one person or another will often cite this or that WP convention, and I've never seen anything that seems all that directly applicable, so it'd be good to hear your thoughts. Adam (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I know you weren't asking me, but he hasn't responded in a week or two so here goes: According to Wikipedia:Naming Conventions article naming "should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." This, to me, describes the situation here to a T. I think everybody above has described "University of Missouri" as the name most english speakers would easily recognize. The old naming study on website navigation that has been presented multiple times supports this. Granted that study was done by MU, but the data presented is raw without any twist that I can see. The minimum of ambiguity is dealt with by a disclaimer at the beginning of the article stating that University of Missouri redirects here or that "for other system schools see.." Article linking has always been my chief motivation. As a matter of practicality 99.99% of the articles that link to University of Missouri are meant for the columbia campus. It is possible 100% do, but I don't want to check every single link. Since the University of Missouri System and all associated schools have made it clear that use of the term "university of Missouri" is never to be applied to any campus but the Columbia one. I still have a hard time figuring out peoples opposition. This is also what the school is calling itself in all public forms and to prevent it the article from being located at the most obvious and easy to recognize spot in the mainspace is trying to make everyone happy. This is not supporting the conventions or making any comment on politics with the system, it is simply reflecting reality. Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Having given it more thought, this argument actually does make sense to me. Changing to support. Adam (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
6 Supports and 2 Oppose. I think this demonstrates a consensus, but I want to have the two opposing editors opinions first, especially Lazytiger's. There is 75% support roughly the same level of support needed for a passing request for adminiship. I know thats fairly irrelevant, but I thought it was a good example of a Wikipedia policy that reflects similar levels of consensus. The conversation has been open for over two weeks and many former parties where alerted. I don't want to leave anybody unhappy, but this seems fairly by the book. Grey Wanderer | Talk 07:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the move (not to say I actually support it); I just think this group is overzealous. We agree that no other campus can claim much of a right to the plain name; it's a distinction between the system and the Columbia campus. Irrespective of the UM System formally stating that they won't refer to themselves as simply the "University of Missouri"... that's totally bullshit. They still do it just as they always have. There is by design and legacy a fuzzy line between the Columbia campus and the system, and distinction between the two, where possible, is a good thing. So, I know I'm outvoted. I don't support it, but do what you will.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 14:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Support per Jussen. Tubahero (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously it is done. Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gallery of photos or commons page?[edit]

I have seen other schools which have a gallery at the bottom of their page, and others that link to a wikimedia commons page (such as Duke). Should we have one of these for this article, and if so, which one? It seems that featured articles have the link to wikimedia commons page and not a gallery. What is the easiest way to amass all the Mizzou related images and put them in the commons if we decide to do so? Breakyunit (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You can find a gallery of Mizzou images here. I know there is some images floating around that are not in that gallery including some by you. I like the commons path over the gallery path, just with an eventually FA Mizzou article in mind.Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I recommend creating a Mizzou page on Commons and linking to it. Move all of the free (not fair-use) images from Wikipedia to Commons and add them to it. Some articles only link to the category but I don't think that looks as good. The link fits in the "External links" section. Below is an example of Texas Tech's. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Texas Tech University.


No where on the website does it ever say anything about the University of Missouri-Columbia being a flagship campus. This is a title that was drawn up by students faculty and alumni to enhance its own image and therefore i do not believe it should be allowed to stay on the site. Whsbrain (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While it does indeed appear (based on a few minutes of googling) that the system has never officially endorsed the term "flagship", that doesn't mean the term is necessarily incorrect (or POV), descriptively speaking. I believe that the term "flagship" is usually applied informally, and not officially conferred by governments or university systems. (Personally I'd be fine with substituting the term "oldest campus" or "founding campus" in the lead and deleting "flagship" from the infobox, but I'm not sure that others will feel the same way.) Adam (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Flagship#University campuses, I think it will answer a lot of your questions. The word is very commonly used to describe MUs role in the system, and does not violate any of wikipedias rules regarding neutrality and NPOV. The term is important to use both in describing the University of Missouri's role in the system and within the framework of higher education in Missouri. It also helps demonstrate that the school is a land-grant research institution, not a commuter college, vocational school, or regional college. It is also important for consistency within Wikipedia as articles such as Oklahoma State University–Stillwater and University of Texas at Austin also make use of this commonly applied term. I see that User:Whsbrain is affiliated with UMSL and encourage him/her to continue his/her helpful edits to the UMSL page. Increase UMSL's article quality by building them up, not by tearing other schools articles down. The use of the term flagship by MU is, in my opinion, not derogatory towards UMSL and UMKC and remember that the use of the term does not necessarily mean that it is condoned and vice versa. If you have any other questions or would like any help on the UMSL page, leave me a note on my talk page. ThanksGrey Wanderer | Talk 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the responses. If flagship means that a university is not a commuter college, vocational school or regional college then every school in the University of Missouri System whould be a flagship. The schools were created to serve the state of missouri along with the cities they are located in(that includes columbia's campus). I dont mean to mettle on Mizzou's page and i would never delete the word, I just get frustrated when people use the word flagship simply because they have been around the longest. Whsbrain (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I appreciate you(Whsbrain) as a rare new wikipedian who uses talk pages instead of engaging in edit-wars. "flagship" does not mean that the university is not commuter college, vocational school, or regional college, it simply helps demonstrate the fact that the school is not any of those, a fact is probably obvious anyway. The use of flagship is often applied to a university within a system that is significantly more well-known world-wide, and has a higher relative academic ranking in publications dealing with things of that nature, than other institutions in the system. the term is also often applied to the campus were the headquarters for the university system is located, or the largest or oldest campus in the system or state. These criteria, as you probably know, are all fulfilled by Mizzou. That said UMSL is one of only four "doctorate" level public institutions in Missouri and has several programs including, I believe, optometry and criminology that are some of the best in the country. I understand your frustration, and think its great you have set out to improve UMSLs articles. I don't believe that the use of the term "flagship" on this page is an any way a commentary on the quality of UMSLs academic programs, it is simply a reflection of the term very often applied and self-applied to describe MUs role within the state.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I should note that by strange coincidence a flagship template has been added to the article, listing all the flagship universities in the U.S, by User:Jccort.Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought that Robert M. Berdahl was a reliable enough source to use as a basis for the definition of the Flagship article. The votes against the category is going heavily against it though. If another couple of reliable sources other than USA Today are found then the flagship concept could be propagated but the definition seems a bit loose and open to political in-fighting. Since flagships are the most expensive ships in the fleet it seems to me that operating budgets should be the determining factor. Alatari (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


The other part of the mediation was settling on a dablink. Does anyone object to this reading:

It fits well within the format of the page and seems to neutrally say what we all discussed. The University of Missouri System page doesn't list the campus locations prominently in the first paragraph. Alatari (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose this is bulky, and adds undue emphasis to the weight other campuses carry on the term. After all I've only seen on reference to another campus being called "University of Missouri" and that was in passing on a talk show, hardly a reliable source.Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think there's anything wrong with linking only to the system article, as it is the only entity that rivals the Columbia campus in usage of the term. It's not necessary for the campus links to be present in the very first portion of the system article; they are featured quite prominently in the second section. FYI, I modeled the system article after others that I felt were very good. Check out how far down you have to go to see a list of campuses in the University of California article!—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Up until a month ago the official name of the system was the University of Missouri and no other campus could claim that title. Now the board of Curators allow the University of Missouri Columbia to use the name only in a few specific instances. Someone may want to check to see if Wikipedia is one of them. The system is still know as the University of Missouri with campuses located in Columbia, Kansas City, Rolla and St. Louis. When you go to the UM system website you see that they refer to themselves as the University of Missouri . I think it is important to point out the the true name of the system is the university of missouri. (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • A reminder: I Agreed in the mediation to the move of the page and this dablink: . Are you all trying to reverse the mediation? Alatari (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to get back into the mediation argument. The mediation was about which mainspace to locate the article in, not the dablink. The dablink that was mentioned in mediation says nothing about University of Missouri referring to any other campuses, it just demonstrates that there are multiple campuses in the University of Missouri system. Of course a university system by definition had more than one campus in it, so thats a given. The givin dablink, is a little bulky and too long. As long as we mention the system, I think it makes it perfectly clear if people want to navigate to a different campus. That said, I doubt anyone arrives at this page not looking for MU, and if they do they are looking for the System article. The name change issue and the entire structure of the system is dealt with on the system page, the dablink should be a short concise link there.Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If concise and precise is what we want then Sometimes "University of Missouri" refers to the University of Missouri System or campuses in Kansas City, Rolla, or St. Louis. is only a few characters longer than the current dablink and contains more accurate information. I don't want to have to go through the arguments again proving that UMKC and UMSL have been called University of Missouri in major news outlets. I would have trouble believing WP:FAITH if that has to happen again. Alatari (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's Wiki convention to use this dablink format for redirects that have more than one potential meaning, but have been redirected to the primary one rather than a disambiguation page: "Such and such" redirects here. For other uses, see Blankety blank. With that in mind, I suggest we use this:

"University of Missouri" redirects here. For other uses, see University of Missouri System.

This stock wording is purely factual and functional. But, I'm also not opposed to a University of Missouri (disambiguation) page, given that University of Missouri continues to redirect to University of Missouri–Columbia. Then, the dablink could read:

"University of Missouri" redirects here. For other uses, see University of Missouri (disambiguation).

The disambig page could contain quick links to all campus articles and the system and give a summary of the situation.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the first lazytiger suggestion. It is concise and links straight to the heart of the matter. The disambig page would really just be a watered down version of the system page, and I think the simpler the better.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no real reason to state: "University of Missouri" redirects here." since they'll see the redirect message at the top of the article and it doesn't seem to be common practice on WP to list all the redirect wordings. This is the first time I've even seen it written out in that manner.
Really? It's pretty common practice to use that message on Wikipedia. It's even mentioned with a supplied template on the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. ENDelt260 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone has to go through all the links to pages from University of Missouri and make sure the usage is correct. I found two that were directing to Columbia but were meant from Rolla or KC. It appears some living people biography pages do not mean Columbia when they state they graduated from the University of Missouri. Alatari (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as I'm here and editing, I'd like to go ahead and voice my support for the:

"University of Missouri" redirects here. For other uses, see University of Missouri System.

suggestion as well. ENDelt260 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and made the change since there seems to be some consensus and little discussion at this point.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


I accidentally hit return when I was trying to type an apostrophe in the edit summary I just made. What I was going to type is, "That's not MU's endowment, that's the UM System's endowment." The 1.1 billion dollar figure belongs on the University of Missouri System page, if you would like to put it there. In fact, I'll do it for you right now.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 01:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose a merger of Associated Students of the University of Missouri and Missouri Students Association into this article. Both articles suffer from WP:Original Research and as campus organization, it generally fails WP:Notability.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cite error[edit]

I noticed that this error is appearing in the References section at the bottom, but I can't figure out why it's happening or how to fix it:

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named MU_facts

The formatting looks exactly the same as other named citations that are working fine. I'm baffled. Can someone take a look at this and see if you can figure it out? Thanks!—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 14:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blah... that was certainly obscure! The first occurrence of that ref (containing the text) was under "budget=" in the infobox -- but "budget" is not actually a valid parameter for Template:Infobox University, and therefore the ref tag was never actually rendered. I removed the "budget=" line from the infobox (someone may wish to restore this information elsewhere in the article), and moved the citation text elsewhere -- seems to have done the trick. Adam (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for figuring it out! I never would have thought to check the validity of the infobox parameter.—Lazytiger (Talk |

contribs) 05:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Awards and Recognition section[edit]

No one has been doing anything to expand that, so I'm going to delete it shortly if I don't see anything happening within the next couple days, unless others agree that it should just be deleted immediately.BlueGold73 (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps add the one cited sentence in that section into the prose, if possible, and delete the rest. I only added the expansion tag to replace an imroper text version that the creator of the section was using. I wasn't actively working to expand it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm just deleting the whole thing. The top 20 MBA program statement isn't completely accurate. It's a top 20 public MBA program, and that's explained in more detail in the Trulaske College of Business article, and the other point isn't cited correctly. There's nothing in the cited source to support that statement. BlueGold73 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

None of the featured university articles have a awards section. I' say delete the whole thing. Anything that is notable can be incorporated into the article.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "MU facts" :
    • [ MU Facts]
    • [ MU Facts | University of Missouri<!-- Bot generated title -->]

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Resource cited is no longer available[edit]

In reading this article, I noted that in the Naming section, the reference cited in the last sentence (number 16) is no longer available online. As this reference is no longer available, I would request that the line it refers to be deleted. Wood712hill (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the recent edit to this portion before seeing this comment. I viewed it as an unexplained removal since the edit summary was not used. Nevertheless, even though the link is now dead does not automatically mean the material should be removed. An alternate source should be sought. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the link; all it took was changing "www" to "archive" in the URL. Wood712hill—it is a bad policy to delete passages simply because of linkrot, especially when it can be so easily solved as it was in this case. Don't show bias through deletion so easily. —Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 01:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Lazytiger-while I made the comment about the cited reference being outdated, I did not delete the line. It is bad policy to assume so. Obviously someone else believed the line should have been deleted. I think you too easily make accusations of bias when obviously you must feel some of your own to have so quickly defended what is a somewhat "biased" statement in the article itself. While the naming situation for the University may have created some tension at the time, it seems more politically motivated than informative in a Wiki article of this nature. When will this tension be allowed to die if this type of statement is encouraged?Wood712hill (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for assuming you made the edit, but you certainly inspired an anonymous party to make your suggested edit within 15 minutes of your note above. The remarks that were made by faculty at other system schools certainly are biased; precisely for that reason, they are statements of historical interest illustrating the tension that existed at the time of the decision (and feelings that are no doubt still harbored), and therefore worthy of inclusion in this Wikipedia article.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 03:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The wording of this last sentence in the "Naming" section seems out of place in what is otherwise a straightforward, factual article. It's problematic on several levels. ("Its use also continues to be advocated by faculty, administration, and alumni of UMKC, UMSL, and Missouri S&T, who feel MU's use of the generic name is arrogant and denigrating to them[16] and threatens the integrity of the system.[17]") The statement suggests that EVERYONE outside of Columbia who is affiliated with the UM System is united in opposition to the name reversion. This couldn't possibly be true, and the sources cited fail to support the statement. (The Tribune article offers a balanced view, indicating a mixture of support for and opposition to the name change. The Maneater, while certainly valuable, is not a publication created by trained, professional journalists.) The statement introduces speculation and presumes insight into what this very large group of people collectively "feels" (something the writer can't know), thus calling into question the objectivity and credibility of the article as a whole. It also leads the reader away on an arbitrary tangent that seems inappropriate in a very general and brief article about the University of Missouri's Columbia campus. Perhaps such statements would be more appropriate elsewhere. For example, Wikipedia provides a page about the UM System that includes a section about the naming controversy. An alternative might be to replace the statement with something of a more factual nature, such as information about official hearings, surveys, documents, protests, etc., regarding the name change.K-p-tiger (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I would argue that the sentence violates Wikipedia's policies regarding neutral point of view and verifiability. Check them out:

"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments."

"Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."K-p-tiger (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In case there is any doubt, I wrote the entire paragraph in question. Certainly, I have bias toward the quality of my own writing, but that's not to say it can't always be improved. Believe it or not, I try very hard to be as unbiased as possible. I often revise my writing, but I have not revisited this particular article in some time. I completely agree that the passage made it sound like everyone outside of Columbia is unanimous in their dislike of the renaming, and the word "some" was a necessary addition. That simple addition alone addresses your complaint about the supposed speculation. However, you went further and deleted the passage about arrogance, denigration, and integrity. I believe, even upon reexamination, that I fairly and accurately paraphrased the sources. I'm not debating that the people quoted are biased; I'm simply writing what was said. I find it very interesting that several important people (chancellor of UMSL, presidents of both UMKC's and UMSL's faculty senates) got bent out of shape about the decision. You're calling into question The Maneater as a source—first, I think The Maneater is about as reputable a source as any, even if it is student-run; second, if you want to raise the bar of acceptability to exclude such sources, Wikipedia simply couldn't exist; third, I don't see why there should be any questioning of their ability to simply print a quote, which is all that I used it for. I absolutely do not agree that anything I wrote (with the addition of "some" included) is speculative, original research, or in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality or verifiability policies. I have preached elsewhere on Wikipedia talk pages about "evenness of informational depth", so I'm sensitive to your critique of going off on a tangent. I'm glad you're thinking about it, but I don't think this is an egregious example. You mention maybe moving/including it in the UM System article (which I also largely wrote), which is something that I've thought about in the past but have not yet followed through. In any case, a tangent here or there isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as an overarching structure to the article has already been established, as I think it has here. Tangents can indicate hooks that future authors can grab onto and expand, or indicate the level of detail that should be established in other sections.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether the "flagship" status of a university can be presented as objective fact[edit]

There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Faculty vs. List of Alumni[edit]

There are now separate lists for UM faculty and UM alumni. However, the main article has a list of UM alumni such as Tim Kaine who were never UM faculty, listed under the heading UM faculty. Am I missing something, or if there is no objection, I will fix this. Racepacket (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

University Presidents and Gideon Frank Rothwell[edit]

In working on an article on Rothwell Gym, I've run into something bizarre in regards to Gideon Frank Rothwell. The official president page makes no mention of him but there is a break for the period where all sources other than the president page say that he was president (the list jumps from 1889 to 1891). That is the only break in the chain. The article on Academic Hall and the fire of 1892 makes mention of him and does not mention Richard Henry Jesse at all. All reports mention that Rothwell was president at the time of the fire (although amusingly while the Academic article says he wanted to tear down the columns but new reports now paint him as their savior). Even if you accept that perhaps he was not an official president and just an interim, it is clear that Jesse was not president at least at the beginning of 1892 and so that official list is suspect.Americasroof (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


In reference to MU creating homecoming in 1911, that is false. I don't know who started it, but I know schools were doing it before 1911 such as Baylor. They just celebrated their 100 year homecoming anniversary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Baylor did hold a "homecoming" of sorts in 1909. But reliable third party sources including the NCAA, Trivial Pursuit, and Jeopardy give credit to MU for holding the first modern day Homecoming event. As best I understand it (and it is confusing) Baylor and the University of Illinois don't receive credit because they weren't annual events or weren't called homecoming. Grey Wanderer (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject[edit]

I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mizzou-Nebraska rivalry[edit]

There is a discussion about if the page should exist at Talk:Missouri–Nebraska football rivalry if anyone is interested. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why MU and not UM?[edit]

I for one would be interested in knowing why this is commonly referred to as MU instead of UM, considering it is the University of Missouri and not Missouri University. (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a reference to cite, but my understanding is that this practice goes back to the days of the old Big 8 conference. In addition to MU, the University of Kansas goes by KU; the University of Colorado, CU; University of Nebraska, NU; University of Oklahoma, OU. (UM is still used, but only in reference to the University of Missouri System, where as MU means the campus in Columbia.) Dmp348 (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, but rather than answer the question, this tidbit just expands the question: why did these schools choose to reverse the initials? I suppose it possible that since there is more than one "University of M state" etc., this would be a way of distinguishing Mizzou from, say, the University of Michigan or Minnesota, but most of the time context avoids confusion. Wschart (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


I apologize if this was already discussed, but I am wondering what the seal of the University of Missouri System is used as the logo on MU's page? According to MU's website[2] their logo is the two letters "M" "U" stacked on top of each other. When looking at the other schools in the system they have the official seal along side of their logos. Is there a reason that MU is using the system seal only? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It was done to bring the page into alignment with the current standards for higher ed featured articles. The seal its self has throughout most of the schools history represented only the MU campus and is prominently featured in MU art and architecture. Hope that answers your questions. Thanks Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Endowment figures[edit]

Is there a reason UM-Columbia's endowment is displayed as the entire system's endowment? Shouldn't the endowment on this page reflect the university's endowment number, as per I just think that making this campus' endowment that of the entire system's gives precedent to then change the numbers of MST, UMKC, and UMSL to display the same figure. Would it be OK to change the endowment figure to that of this universities', instead the systems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Women with their pistols at the ready: ladies champions team of the Missouri University shooting club, 1934

Hello. I stumbled upon this picture, and I thought it could be interesting to use it in the article. Does anybody know if that shooting club is still active at the University?Jeff5102 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, let's put it in! Parkwells (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


Have done extensive copy editing to the article to: reduce marketing verbiage, take out red links, make language and sentences more concise and direct, reorder photos to relate better to text and in terms of appearance on the page, and similar changes. Journalism students at MU may want to review this article again, but make sure you don't get carried away by too many details. All the coaches don't need to be named; none of the scholars are, nor academic department heads, nor leaders of research centers. It is supposed to be a university, not just a sports complex.Parkwells (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

First journalism school[edit]

Is there a source for the French claim from a reliable third-party? Also, as this is the english wikipedia, it needs to be in english. If this can be found then we should note that in the lead. Grey Wanderer (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Groups and Activities - Improvement needed[edit]

There are only six societies and one student association included here. I've visited the university and I know there are many many more. I work closely with the Trulaske Consulting Association and the Muslim Students Organisation and I'm adding them to this page. However, there needs to be more information in this section and I appreciate any effort to do so.

spartymantz (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Notable Alumni[edit]

Without a doubt, two MAJOR names are missing: Walter Cronkite, and Mort Walker. Whereas some might not consider Mort Walker a major alumnus, there is a statue of Beetle Bailey on campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mort Walker is listed in the main article of U of M alumni: As for Cronkite, his biography says he went to the U of Texas. I went to Mizzou and never heard him mentioned. Czolgolz (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Endowment Figure Inconsistencies[edit]

The number listed for the endowment figure ($477.3 million) does not show up anywhere on the cited page ([3]). I was just wondering how the person who recently edited it (Katydidit on 20 January 2012) got to that figure. --KyleECronin (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that. I suspect Katydidit did that math to break down the System Endowment by enrollment ratio. This is probably WP:OR. Also, the four system schools don't have separate endowments, all the money is considered the system's endowment. In addition the money in that endowment is not necessarily required to be assigned to certain schools aka allotment could be disproportionate to a given school's enrollment. To reflect the endowment honestly I think all the schools should have the system's endowment of course noted that it is the system and not the individual schools endowment. This is how it has been handled on several other university wiki articles. Though, I would like to hear what Katydidit has to say on the issue. Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
New endowment figures were released this week. I went ahead and updated per above.

President resigns[edit]

I know it's in flux, but shouldn't the resignation of the president (an office not listed by us because he is the president of the umbrella organization, the U of Mo system) ( be included? Kdammers (talk)

Yeah, it's national news so the resignation and the events surrounding it probably merit a sentence or two in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see no mention of the recent controversy as well, but I would have expected more than a sentence or two. I fully expected a section that discussed the recent controversy. IMO, to ignore it makes the university seem to be "out of touch" with what has been going on, for lack of a nicer way to put it. Gandydancer (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
See 2015 University of Missouri student uprising We43ff21 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be referred to in the article itself? (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that the poop swastika actually existed.[edit] We43ff21 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Except for the actual police report. Your edits illustrate the dangers of relying on speculations by partisan media. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)