Talk:Friends University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), an attempt to better organise and unify articles relating to the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-importance within Quakerism.

This article is part of WikiProject Kansas, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Kansas-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

[edit] Urban Legend

Stop posting what you are calling an urban legend. The information isn't relevant to Friends University. Post this on snopes.com, not on Wiki. This is the same as someone scrawling dildo on a bathroom wall. It is offensive and meant to be offensive and has no purpose whatsoever in the information about Friends University.

In order for it to be included in Wikipedia, I think the supporters of the urban legend need to provide a source for it. Then, I think it should go on a page dealing with urban legends, not on the page about the university. It may be notable as an urban legend, if it actually exists, but it is not notable as a fact about the university, which is what this page is about. Logophile 07:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you actually follow the link to false etymologies (provided) you will find that there is a source for this as an urban legend. And, although this may not be the most notable fact about the notable, th fact that the university is subject of an extremely widespread urban legend is suficiently notable to be included on wikipedia. this is actually to the university's benefit -- a broad portion of the population believes that this univeristy is ur once was "FUCK". Having a short note about this false etymology on the university's article will be helpful in dispelling this mistaken notion. Interestingstuffadder 16:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the university. I am not disputing its accuracy, I am saying that it doesn't belong on this page. Figure out what an encylopedia is all about and you will understand what I am saying. As you rightly point out, this information is already included on the FUCK page. Considering the etimology is covered on the other page, it is redundant here. Take it off the other page and then I could see it going here. The inclusion of this epithet on this page is base, crude, derisive and is meant to be so. It is also uninformative about the history of Friends University, either good or ill.Heatmonkey

Rather than leaving it as it is or deleting it entirely, it might be a better idea to reduce it down to one sentence in a group of other "trivia" about the university. Such as, "Contrary to urban legend, the University was never known as 'Friends University of Central Kansas'", and linking that to the article on "FUCK" (although I no longer see any mention of it in the FUCK article). I'm intending to put some trivia in, so I'll see how that fits. Then the section can be called "trivia", rather than an entire section devoted to this. ----Steve 03:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to pull it for now. If others want to work through the comprimise and replace feel free, but until it's settled let's just remove it. --Ahc 14:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have graduated, worked, am now alumni, and have 15 family members that have gone to Friends. I am personal friends with Dr. Biff Green, the president. I have personally asked and looked at this subject, and it is not true, should not be on the page, is juvenile.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Livin4dios (talk • contribs).

Unclear how your sources could know whether this is "true". This is a widespread urban legend (as establushed by independent, verifiable sources -- see above) that did not originate at the university. It is relevant to the university because it is about the university. It in fact is notable in part because it is not "true" but because people say it any way. Your arguments amount to boosterism in favor of the university. Please stop. Interestingstuffadder 15:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually there were several concerns above about inclusion of this information; I removed the text back in September while people worked out a compromise (which no one has taken the time to do). Simply because someone else announced they would remove text not on the page does not suggest that you needed to replace it without trying to work out a compromise. --Ahc 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be more prudent and wise to add a sentence or two, which I have done, to simply clarify the name of the university. While you state that the simple discussion of the name of the university constitutes a mention on the page of this offensive and sad joke, it would be far more true and honest to simply clarify the situation. We should know that Friends University is, has always been, and will always be, Friends University, initials F. U. When the land was donated by James Davis, he had one stipulation: that the name always be Friends University. It might also be noted that it was not until he 1980's that Friends first started offering Master's degrees. Most institutions that do not offer graduate degrees simply call themselves colleges, such as "Friends College". But from the first year, 1898, it is seen that Friends named Friends University

Please know that I understand the stance on no point of view and unbiased reporting. I act with great respect for this as well as a very great respect for the institution. I believe that this clarification will help educate anyone seeking information on this so called "urban legend" without linking it to a subject that has nothing at all to do with Friends.--livin4dios 5:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why beat around the bush? Why not mention the urban legend as part of your clarification of what the name is? It is notable and verifiable. Interestingstuffadder 14:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

One reason is that many people are disturbed by the acronym. Does having this small piece of information present really improve the quality of the article so much that it justifies making readers uncomfortable? While I don't think you hide information to avoid upsetting people, I don't see how this legend's inclusion in this article benefits the majority of readers. Contrary to what people in the Friends University community seem to think, in my experience this is not a wide spread a legend in either the large Friends or academic communities; I've known about the University for many years and until the mention of the joke appeared here I had never heard it. What's more it appeared to be obviously a joke, not something that people would take seriously in large numbers. Also, out of respect for process, please stop putting the information back up until we settle on compromise wording. --Ahc 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingstuffadder, to publically answer your comment in the edit history about why to remove the text until this discussion is resolved, I can offer three reasons that seem clear to me. First, since we're discussing material that may be unnecessary and offensive it seems prudent to wait until we have agreed that the information is going to be included before offending people. If the information were about something more important then a tasteless joke I might feel differently, but this isn’t suppressing some great debate. Second, the majority of editors in this discussion have expressed reservations about the text, while a clear solution has not yet emerged, if you read back over all the comments, most individuals expressed concerns about including this information. Logophile, Heatmonkey, and livin4dios have all expressed that they do not think the information belongs here; Steve is really the only one of us that has tried to forge a compromise, but little came of it. You are the only editor that has strongly favored including this information. Finally the information was absent for several months after it was removed, I’m not clear why it is so important that it suddenly be included now. Personally I'm not sure why it is notable, but I'm open to being convinced. --Ahc 05:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I came to this page just now specifically to read about when and how they changed the name. I didn't realize the FUCK acronym was just a myth. Why not put it on the page? If I had not checked the discussion, I would have gone on thinking the university used to be FUCK. Chicken Wing 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For no reason that I can understand, I don't know why you would expect to find that information on a encyclopedia. This article is not the right place for this. It is, at best, a little known, middle school, juvenile joke that is passed along only by those who desire to have a laugh. This does not constitute enough reason to put in on this page. Nerdland 14:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your answer makes no sense. I thought this bit of trivia was the truth. It had been relayed to me by multiple sources over the years, at least one of which is a fairly reliable individual. I came here to read about the controversy, but it turns out to be just a myth. Now, given that many people think that the story is real, that is the reason it would be expected to be found here. At least make a good-faith effort to understand the situation. Chicken Wing 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we try this in the Triva section:

There is an urban legend that Friends University was once known as 'Friends University of Central Kansas' making a joke from the acronym; the name has always been Friends University.

--Ahc 18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gets my vote. ----Steve 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the way I would have expected to find the information when I originally viewed the article. It works. Chicken Wing 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely support this compromise, although there is no valid wikipedia rationale for beating around the bush re the fact that the acronym in question is "FUCK", as wikipedia is not censored. Interestingstuffadder 16:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a valid "Wikipedia rationale" requiring the use of a word that will upset and distract readers and does not add to the content of the article. There are enough editors bothered by inclusion of this detail to have caused an rather long debate on the matter; I don't see a reason to antagonize people further.

I count this as 3 for and 1 against, so I've switched the text to the proposal I made the other day. I suggest we try to keep the discussion here, and not get into revert a war. If we need to find a different comprise, I think that is fine, let's just try to be friendly about it. --Ahc 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That valid wikipedia rationale is WP:NOT#CENSORED. Given this guideline, it is unclear why we need to refer to this acronym in roundabout terms. Just stating what it is is far more direct and less cumbersome. In short, just saying the acronym in question just makes better prose and censorship should not be used to justify awkward writing. Also, there are so many disclaimers making clear that this is just a myth, it is unclear how this reflects on the school at all.Interestingstuffadder 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not concerned here about censorship, I'm well aware that we are free to use whatever words we feel help make the article stronger. What concerns me is clarity of expression; which the second half of your argument deals with much better than your seeming concern about being censored. I agree your new phrasing is awkward, but I think that is in part because you are determined to make sure people know what we're talking about. I don't think anyone will have any trouble understanding the phrase "making a joke from the acronym", which is why I used it in the first place. In general I think the shorter version if tighter and clearer then the one that's now up (I would adjust to use your new opening phrase I think that's a little stronger). Since that was the comprise wording that others agreed to, I'm going to switch back to it for now. I'll provide a link to the history of that change so other editors can easily see the text you wrote, if you'd like to discuss changing it.

My other concern is that we have now put more words into discussing this one piece of the article, than are in the whole article. I'd like to see us move on from this soon so that energy can go into more useful pursuits. --Ahc 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The aforementioned link --Ahc 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found my version far more clearly written than yours, and that is why I made the changes. Somehow, it seems more clear to come out and say something rather than simply allude to it. Interestingstuffadder 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No matter what is said about this subject, I feel that it doesn't apply to the school. I would not vote for it, and feel it should remain in the talk page.Sputnik25 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Friends University's name has been rumored to be an acronym for a more vulgar term. The name has always been Friends University." Nerdland 03:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so we now have 3 versions to pick from:

1. From Interestingstuffadder: An urban legend claims that Friends University was once known as 'Friends University of Central Kansas'. The premise of the urban legend was that the acronym for a university by this name would be a well known profanity. This urban legend has no basis in reality; the university's name has always been Friends University.
2. From Nerdland:Friends University's name has been rumored to be an acronym for a more vulgar term. The name has always been Friends University.
3. From myself:There is an urban legend that Friends University was once known as 'Friends University of Central Kansas' making a joke from the acronym; the name has always been Friends University.

For the time being I'm reverting back to mine, since it's the agreed on compromise above. However, I think it would be helpful if others could take a minute to chime in; we could use some new input. --Ahc 04:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

FIRST CHOICE:Just stumbled upon this fascinating debate...I would favor the first choice. Seems more descriptive. Unclear why we can't just say that the acronym is vulgar and use wiki formatting tools to make clear that it is 'FUCK'. Captaintruth 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While I wholly believe that my version is better, for the time being I will, in the spirit of compromise vote for Ahc's, #3, as it seems appropriate. I do believe, though, in the long run, that this does not belong in the page at all.Nerdland 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I vote for #3. It is far better then the first, and gives the information that is desired. Ilikefriendsu 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1. 3 has the information needed without offending anyone. I think it gives the better description without unnecessary vulgarity. Johnsoncc 21:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to a compromise involving removing the boldfacing of "F U C K". Without this bolfdfacing, my version is no more offensive than the others. At the same time, it explains the issue better (does't beat around the bush and mentions that the "joke" in question involves a "vulgarity") and does a better job of putting the issue in context. Interestingstuffadder 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. Interestingstuffadder's version may have more words, but it certainly doesn't add anything to the point of this stupid addition. If we have to have it at all, it would be far better to have #3 instead, even better for #2, and best not at all.Nerdland 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that more words do not mean you convey more information. When it comes down to it, I don't think it's imperative that this factoid stay in the article (although I must say that if it goes, we've wasted a TON of effort), but I would offer one reason to keep it other than those discussed above: I suspect it will keep getting added back in at varying levels of quality. When there is 1 good sentence explaining something, I find, people often leave it alone. Whereas if it is deleted, people will often add it back in later. Given how much effort this has taken so far, I'd rather see us leave the 1 silly sentence in, instead of having to remind people once a month to leave it out. --Ahc 04:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I echo your sentiments exactly. I believe that this issue can be put to rest, FINALLY. This should settle the account with interestingstuffadder, and hopefully, somewhere down the road, this little sentence can be removed totally. For the time being, I believe we have reached a majority consensus that has been, at best, a waste of time and effort.Nerdland 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a Kansas native and many of my friends and family members have attended Friends Univerity. First off, I definitely think this urban legend should be included here -- I have been hearing it all my life and, until I was 16 or 17, thought it was true. Thus, it is actually in the university's best interest to dispel this myth by making clear in this article that it does not reflect reality. Secondly, as to the phrasing of this part of the article, I have read the three suggestions and believe the first one (with or without the boldfacing of F, U, C, and K, although I would prefer they not be boldfaced) is the best. It says exactly what the issue is without being vulgar. Also, on a subjective level, this suggestion seems to be the best written of the three. Mister Nice Guy 23:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would like to know where on the internet this juvenile joke can be found. Following Wikipedia's own guidelines, I would like to see a reference added to this section if it is to remain. Nerdland 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I Googled around a little for sources, but most of what's online is copies of versions of this page. I would suggest that, online sources aside, it does seem that there is a fair argument to be made that people run into this in the real world from time to time. I did see a couple myspace pages by students that used the 'central Kansas' part as a joke. --Ahc 15:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems from my count of the comments above, we're at 4 for #3, and 3 for #1. Can we please close this now? --Ahc 15:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I will call it: Closed. Done. Finito. Finished. Nerdland 18:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, please see Wikipedia is not a democracy. A 4 to 3 "vote" is not conclusive. Wikipedia operates by consensus and reasoned arguments, not votes. As I read them, the arguments for #1 seem more complete and more convincingly dont reflect a reflexive pro-friends sanitizing bias. Also, while most of the 4 "votes" for #3 are by users with a small number of edits (under 50 edits, primarily to this page), the votes for #1 are by much more experienced users who presumably have a better understanding of wikipedia policy. As such, I see consensus overall in favor of #1, or, at the very least, no conclusive consensus. As such, I will go ahead and revert back to #1. I also wonder what is so offensive to you about #1? It simply clarifies what the other version says. Interestingstuffadder 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Interestingstuffadder: Your desire to push forward even the concensus is against you violates several Wikipedian rules: (1) Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and (2) Going against concensus. Also, the information that you want to put in the article violates several Wikipedian rules it and of itself and therefore cannot and will not be allowed. (1) The information is non-notable. Please see Wikipedia:Trivia. (2) The information is potentially defamatory to a great institution. (3) You have not provided a reliable source to back the claims. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. (4) The information is not encyclopedic. (5) The information does not fit in the flow of the article. And I can go on and on. Also, this is not about being pro-Friends or anti-Friends, this is about Wikipedia and following the rules. It will be removed. Have a good day. --Getaway 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To respond: I am not distrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point -- I am not the only experienced user who has expressed the position I advocate; there is in fact a strong argument that consensus among experienced users reflects my view, also, there seems to be consensus for including some version of this language (as this debate seems to have agreed). 2) Being "defamatory to a great institution" has nothin to do with wikiped policy. 3) not simply trivia or non notable --see the discussion..several users have expressed confusion about the university's real name...clearing up that the name of the university and dispelling this urban legend seems pretty fundamental to this article and is hardly merely trivia...in fact, doing so seems to be in the university's best interest and the language I have proposed does not contain any profanity, so it is hard to see how it sullies this article. 4) I have provided three moderately reliable sources; none is perfect unto itself, btu grouped together these seem to establish verifiability. 5) as for flow, the inclusion of this info/formatting is quite consistent with numerous other articles...unclear what you mean about flow....In sum, I genuinely believe this info im[proves the article and wikipedia. please do not question my motives. please assume good faith. Interestingstuffadder 15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

K, everybody put your guns away, it's just a friendly poker game. How about this below? Please list problems if you have any.

An urban legend claims that Friends University was once known as Friends University of Central Kansas. The premise of the urban legend was that the acronym for a university by this name would be a well known profanity. This is not the case, as the university's name has always been Friends University.

Although a reference will need to be provided that says that the name has always been Friends University. ----Steve 16:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with this compromise language. Interestingstuffadder 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Steve, everyone understands that the name of the university has never been different from FU. There wouldn't be a link telling people that the name has never changed, as that would be idiotic. Instead, it is right to demand that a link be provided, as has been done, though not from any reliable or good source, that shows that this "legend" exists. Thus, in good form, it is the exception to the rule that must be established, and not the rule itself. If you think it through, simple logic tells you this. Nerdland 05:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the U

I work at Friends, and have access to some works that might talk about its history. I would like to spend some time compiling that, and just wanted to make sure nobody else is doing the same. If I don't see any response here saying that it's already underway, I will begin. Also, someone with a little more knowledge on Quakerism will want to copy-edit what I write. ----Steve 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about getting the Quakerism covered here. That's covered elsewhere, but if you have access to documents that tell the history of the U, please do work that information in! Also please remember to include references whenever possible. If the formatting is off others will fix it. --Ahc 05:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I found the minutes of the MAYM... I wonder if the U is mentioned in there at all... I wish I had more time than just my lunch hour to study this.

I just put in my first contribution to the history section. I intend to do a little cleaning up, and your comments are welcome. All that info came from the same book, so if I did the reference wrong, I'll freely admit it. Have fun critiqing it. My next task is to look up a local newspaper article that talks about the purchase of the land, and look in the minutes of the kansas yearly meeting. Should be a couple hours before I have that. ----Steve 00:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a couple of small format tweaks, but nothing serious. One word of caution, try to avoid doing much original research. Wikipedia isn't a collection of research papers from primary resources, or a summation of secondary resources. Where the right line is can be subjective, but hanle with care. --Ahc 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unacceptable Trivia section

The Trivia section that has been added to the article violates several Wikipedia rules. (1) not notable, (2) trivia, by definition not important enough to be in a Wikipedia article, (3) No reliable source provided, (4) Potentially defamatory to Friends Univ., and (5) Listen to Jimbo Wales: Rumour, urban legends do not make the cut. Please see Zero Information is perferred to false or misleading information.--Getaway 17:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Every one of your assertions about this information is disputed in the discussion above. I am glad you think you are the final arbiter of everything (I have noticed on your talk page that you have been cited for this attitude many, many times), but wikipedia does operate by consensus and your assertions and actions here are not in line with the consensus that was just about arrived at after a several months long discussion. Interestingstuffadder 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Any user may remove offensive unsourced material on discovery. I have done so. Fred Bauder 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Three sources have been provided for this material. It i hardly offensive, and in fact it clears up a common misperception about the university's name. Consensus (above) supports including this information. Interestingstuffadder 20:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But none of your sources support the information that a historically Quaker school was ever known as FUCK. Fred Bauder 20:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually all three do. Interestingstuffadder 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK... I'm lazy. Can you link those sources again? I don't seem to be able to find them above. nevermind, I found them. ----Steve 22:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have always preferred that this be dropped. It is my desire that we all agree, but it seems that with inflammatory arguments and now a new voice that seems to be unwilling to compromise in ANY fashion, I am going to go ahead and change my focus to improving the page, instead of worrying about this pointless and moronic subject. Do you all realize how much time we have spent discussing this one subject? My personal encouragement would be to let it go. We can all move on with life.

But do as you all will, since history rarely disappoints us. Nerdland 05:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)