Talk:Eastern Michigan University
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Eastern Michigan University is part of WikiProject Michigan, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Michigan. |
 |
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Athletics/Other Information
I threw a quick fix on the cats, but I can't help feeling like the Athletic Facts section should be rolled into Athletics, rather than standing on its own. Regardless, it doesn't belong under Nickname Controversy. Nburden 12:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Forensics and Athletics
With national championships and individual national champions listed for athletics, would it be amiss to list the same information for the forensics team? I would be in favor of doing so, considering that the forensics team is the most sucessful team on campus. I'll leave it to the talk page for now, but barring any objection, I'll add the information on or around June 7, 2007. Nburden 23:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Added the members of the Forensics Hall of Fame. Nburden 07:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Put the members of the Hall of Fame back. These are people with multiple individual national championships. If we are willing to list NCAA individual champions, why not people who have won several national championships in a different activity? Nburden 17:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps something akin to a NCAA champs side page and a Forensics page, my concern is that if every academic/athletic team started listing achievements than this page would become far to cluttered.Toasterking 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would support a side page. I'm just shooting for equal recognition for people who have achieved at the same levels. Nburden 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Completely understand, and I do believe that EMUs forensic team should get way more recognition than they do. IMO they are one of the better/best teams of any sort that EMU has right now.12:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Create an EMU forensics page if you want the information. However, placing this information in the article sets a dangerous precedent for every other University article. Essentially, every other extra-curricular would be able to place their success on the page. For example, the EMU mock Trial team, or EMU Model United Nations would be able to place their accomplishments. Naturally, this would create more problems. The fact is there is a substanital difference in notability between athletic and academic competition. Whether there should be this distinction is immaterial. Don't add the information to make a point. See WP:Point. However, it does seem reasonable for the EMU forensics team (its one of the best in the country) to have its own page. So create it and link it to the EMU page. Under this situation, I don't think most people would object to including the Forensics hall of fame. I'd even argue to keep the seperate page, and any relevant information. Have a nice day. :0)CraigMonroe 14:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is it safe to now remove the athletic facts from the page and if someone wants to create a page for athletics have at it?15:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- All of the information in the athletics section seems to be included in Eastern Michigan Eagles, however that page needs some work. I'll try to tackle it later today if I get a chance. Nburden 17:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is it safe to now remove the athletic facts from the page and if someone wants to create a page for athletics have at it?15:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Create an EMU forensics page if you want the information. However, placing this information in the article sets a dangerous precedent for every other University article. Essentially, every other extra-curricular would be able to place their success on the page. For example, the EMU mock Trial team, or EMU Model United Nations would be able to place their accomplishments. Naturally, this would create more problems. The fact is there is a substanital difference in notability between athletic and academic competition. Whether there should be this distinction is immaterial. Don't add the information to make a point. See WP:Point. However, it does seem reasonable for the EMU forensics team (its one of the best in the country) to have its own page. So create it and link it to the EMU page. Under this situation, I don't think most people would object to including the Forensics hall of fame. I'd even argue to keep the seperate page, and any relevant information. Have a nice day. :0)CraigMonroe 14:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Completely understand, and I do believe that EMUs forensic team should get way more recognition than they do. IMO they are one of the better/best teams of any sort that EMU has right now.12:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would support a side page. I'm just shooting for equal recognition for people who have achieved at the same levels. Nburden 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps something akin to a NCAA champs side page and a Forensics page, my concern is that if every academic/athletic team started listing achievements than this page would become far to cluttered.Toasterking 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Put the members of the Hall of Fame back. These are people with multiple individual national championships. If we are willing to list NCAA individual champions, why not people who have won several national championships in a different activity? Nburden 17:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] EMU dropped "Hurons"
A few lines ought to be given to the controversy when EMU dropped "Hurons" as their mascot and picked Eagles instead. I don't know if any alumni groups still push to restore the old name, but throughout the early 1990s, you could see bumper stickers all over campus saying, "Once a Huron, Always a Huron." A group fighting against the change scrambled to find any actual Hurons in the area, and were disappointed to learn that the tribe was absorbed into other tribes long ago, so it wouldn't be easy to find modern Hurons to support their cause. A chief from Minnesota (from one of the tribes related to Hurons?) made statements saying that he felt the mascot was meant to honor Native Americans and that he did not take offense. A rumor circulated that white EMU administrators had demanded this change out of the blue just to be politically correct, but it was originally requested by the EMU chapter of NASA (Native American Student Association, may have changed name to NASO in later years to avoid confusion with that other NASA?).
I don't have sources off the top of my head, relying on my failing memory for now, but I could dig up some info if necessary.
R.T. Northrup, Class of '94
I recall some controversy from my time at EMU (early 1990s) in which the Student Government passed (or was hoping to pass) a resolution that would call for a boycott against local businesses in support of restoring the Huron name. ~ JW
There is an active Chapter of the Huron Restoration Alumni. They can fill you in on the change from Hurons to Eagles. The change was first demanded by the Michigan Human Rights Commission, not any student organization. A Chief of the Huron Tribe from Canada, rode in our homecoming parade in 1986, to protest against the change, which happened for reasons of political correctness - without the input of thousands of loyal alumni, who were deeply upset that we had been ignored.
Roger Waun Class of '66 and '68
[edit] List of visitors
I've removed this section a couple times now. I contend that there's nothing of interest to an encyclopedia article about a list of people who happen to have made appearances on campus in recent months or years, For one thing, the list could get very long, and would be in constant need of updating. But more importantly, it doesn't tell you annything about EMU. Someone looking up information about EMU won't be doing it because they wonder what popular comedians or hip-hop artists have been on campus recently. But I can see that there's also a persistent voice in favor of keeping it, so I thought I'd try to get some consensus here. Here's the section as it appeared before I deleted it:
Events at the Ypsilanti campus have hosted Michael Moore, Cornel West, former US President Bill Clinton, comedian Bill Maher, poet Maya Angelou, Sister Helen Prejean and African Methodist Episcopal Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie on campus. This year (2005-2006) special guests include comedians Dave Chappelle, Chuck D, and Lily Tomlin, documentarian Morgan Spurlock, rock band My Chemical Romance, Indian movie star Vasundhara Dasand Indian musician A. R. Rahman.
I would argue that it's overwikied, overly timebound, and reveals little to nothing about the school or its students. Comments? · rodii · 14:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's pretty pointless, in my opinion. It's almost certainly not a complete list, and most likely never will be. Many universities are visited by high-profile names - Eastern Michigan isn't special in this regard. --fuzzy510 22:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but many schools are not visited by famous people. It just shows that EMU is "on the map" so to speak. - an EMU student.
[edit] restructured article
I think the article need to be structured better, as it read very amateurish, like a first draft, rough point form copy. I tried to retain most of what was written in the points, and deleted dated or duplicated info. This Paul is Dead controversy has its own article and I think it does not need mentioning her since it is so old and almost coincidental to the actual college and its students --Mikerussell 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article written by University Communications?
I've added the unbalanced and advert warnings to the top of the entire article. Some of the sections seem to be take verbatim from University Communications (read:Public Relations) publications. This article does not cover any of the major controviersies at EMU.
- Why not tell us of some then? This tagging is never as good as offering improvements. If you cannot edit in some interesting stuff, then why do you expect others to do any better.--Mikerussell 04:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- What is the purpose of tags then? If everyone who took issue with a particular article just rewrote the section(s), then there would be no need. I tagged the article b/c it is clearly biased. I don't have the time to rewrite the article, but I think people deserve to be warned of advert-like articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.76.172.49 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
- I deleted the Alumni Association section which was a recent addition and clearly not appropriate. Tags are not for a personal opinion of an anonymous editor to express their displeasure. If the article is "clearly biased", you should mention the need for corrections on this Discussion page with an appropriate heading. As anybody can read in the tag label itself, "Please see the discussion on the talk page." is part of the label. You placed many tags without any effort to add to the Talk page beyond claiming the article is from University Communications, which strictly speaking should be immediately deleted because that violates copyright and wikipedia policy. Tags are aimed, as far as I know, at galvanizing other editors to amend the article, not to damage the article and mislead readers. Where is a potential editor suppose to start considering the "clear bias" you state and make improvements? There is nothing PR about this article, it is similiar to comparable articles in tone and content. If you look at featured articles like the University of Michigan you will read similiar style and content. I am not saying the article shouldn't be improved, and any information about controversies or issues that show the school, its students or adminstration in a 'negative' light is good to add and interseting to read. As far as the article there are negative comments, such as the poor attendence of the football team. --Mikerussell 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who reads Wikipedia often/too much, I rely on on NPOV and bias tags heavily. I don't use them to edit the pages (I haven't the time or, frankly, the interest), rather I rely on them to let me know when I might not be getting the full story. That is why I tagged the article. This is Wikipedia; there is no burden of proof. My opnion counts just as heavily as anyone else's. It is not anyone's job to go around demanding evidence that justifies the addition of tags to an article. People have differing opinions (I'm sure someone from Univ. Comm. would say the article is pergectly balanced.), and I just so happen to believe that this article is, in general, unbalanced (and readers should be warned as such). I also find it interesting that you say 'there is nothing PR about it' when the very next edit you made was:"06:23, 5 February 2007 Mikerussell (Talk | contribs) (→Alumni Association: - del section on Alumni Assoc, which reads as advertisement for the association)" Again. People should be warned when they may not be getting the full story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.76.172.49 (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
- The manner in which excessive tagging was done almost approached vandalism, but I think we have wasted enough time on this discussion. --Mikerussell 04:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who reads Wikipedia often/too much, I rely on on NPOV and bias tags heavily. I don't use them to edit the pages (I haven't the time or, frankly, the interest), rather I rely on them to let me know when I might not be getting the full story. That is why I tagged the article. This is Wikipedia; there is no burden of proof. My opnion counts just as heavily as anyone else's. It is not anyone's job to go around demanding evidence that justifies the addition of tags to an article. People have differing opinions (I'm sure someone from Univ. Comm. would say the article is pergectly balanced.), and I just so happen to believe that this article is, in general, unbalanced (and readers should be warned as such). I also find it interesting that you say 'there is nothing PR about it' when the very next edit you made was:"06:23, 5 February 2007 Mikerussell (Talk | contribs) (→Alumni Association: - del section on Alumni Assoc, which reads as advertisement for the association)" Again. People should be warned when they may not be getting the full story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.76.172.49 (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
- I deleted the Alumni Association section which was a recent addition and clearly not appropriate. Tags are not for a personal opinion of an anonymous editor to express their displeasure. If the article is "clearly biased", you should mention the need for corrections on this Discussion page with an appropriate heading. As anybody can read in the tag label itself, "Please see the discussion on the talk page." is part of the label. You placed many tags without any effort to add to the Talk page beyond claiming the article is from University Communications, which strictly speaking should be immediately deleted because that violates copyright and wikipedia policy. Tags are aimed, as far as I know, at galvanizing other editors to amend the article, not to damage the article and mislead readers. Where is a potential editor suppose to start considering the "clear bias" you state and make improvements? There is nothing PR about this article, it is similiar to comparable articles in tone and content. If you look at featured articles like the University of Michigan you will read similiar style and content. I am not saying the article shouldn't be improved, and any information about controversies or issues that show the school, its students or adminstration in a 'negative' light is good to add and interseting to read. As far as the article there are negative comments, such as the poor attendence of the football team. --Mikerussell 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of tags then? If everyone who took issue with a particular article just rewrote the section(s), then there would be no need. I tagged the article b/c it is clearly biased. I don't have the time to rewrite the article, but I think people deserve to be warned of advert-like articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.76.172.49 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] I;m sure life is rough at EMU
but i don't think this is the best way to say it, so i cut it out. Carptrash 10:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Every year students get robbed and beaten by roving gangs of youths.
[edit] Removed ignorant comments about Librarians
I don't think there is a lot of point to debating the deletions, because they are done by a anonymous editor and written as an obvious attempt to discredit the university, but the point of fact is that children are not allowed in the library unescorted by their parents. HERE IS THE POLICY: Children in the Halle Library Policy. Moreover, there is a computer use policy for all users at EMU, read it here: The EMU Acceptable Use Policy. Thus the paragraph long addition is complete slander and cannot remain on wikipedia under any policy. In general terms, librarians are not "unethical" to allow users access information through library computers. Quite the opposite, American Library Association has a detailed and clearly articulated ethical standards regarding freedom of information and a Library Bill of Rights for all users. Librarians cannot engage in censorship, they don't go through books and rip out pages that may have obscene words or images, the same way they don't go through the Internet and block websites. Here is a link to the ALA Intellectual Freedom Statements and Policies.--Mikerussell 04:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have been a long time user of the EMU libraries and although I have several bones to pick with both the EMU powerstructure and the library in specific, I have always found the facility to be well run, the staff to be useful and helpful and have observed NONE of the stuff that was removed. Nice cut Mike. Well talk about my issues another time, another place. Carptrash 09:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rape/Murder
Someone edited the page to discuss the controversial coverage of the Laura Dickinson rape but it had a very POV spin on it, cleaned it up and whatnot. I feel that this should be left in as it is not garnering national attention and a large issue to the students at EMU. Anyone disagree? Toasterking 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It should be added and it should be ok if its "One Sided." EMU refuses to talk about it
I added a current event tag, and as such also moved the section re: the clery act violation to the top. I did this as a result of the DOE report being released and feeling that this is now a current event that will be discussed in the media/regents/community/etc. Let me know if anyone feels differently.Toasterking 12:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Toasterking, sorry about the Rape/Murder section. Guess I goofed! Nburden 21:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I feel placing it at the top goes against the wikipedia standard for University articles. There is a set form, and a Clery Act violation clearly does not directly fit at the top of the form. However, I think it does fit in the section about university history, so I placed it there. If you want, move the current event tag to this area of the article. Also, I think the section has a very POV slant to it. Whether or not the University talks about it does not give a basis for POV. It probably needs substantial clean-up.CraigMonroe 14:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, the section should not be placed at the top. I moved it further down and merged it with the Nickname Controversy into a general Controversies section. This isn't the best solution, either, but the article is short and there was no other currently existing section in which it could fit. It should go at the bottom if it is given its own section, not at the top.--Gloriamarie 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I feel placing it at the top goes against the wikipedia standard for University articles. There is a set form, and a Clery Act violation clearly does not directly fit at the top of the form. However, I think it does fit in the section about university history, so I placed it there. If you want, move the current event tag to this area of the article. Also, I think the section has a very POV slant to it. Whether or not the University talks about it does not give a basis for POV. It probably needs substantial clean-up.CraigMonroe 14:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Any general consensus on the title of the article on the Dickinson death? It seems to keep bouncing from "rape" to "rape/murder"... my vote is for the latter, anyone else? Toasterking 23:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I too support "Rape/Murder." Nburden 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First appearance in the NCAA tournament for men's basketball
The article states that the men's first appearance to the basketball NCAA tournament was in 1991 when in fact it was in 1988 with the help of Grant Long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.8.101 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Header emu-logo.gif
Image:Header emu-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
