Talk:Florida Atlantic University/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Research University

In case anybody was wondering: There was a recent change to the main textbox from "state university" to "public research university" (there was a revert attempt by a heavy FIU contributor who also changed the stadium to errant information). I looked into the links and FAU is undoubtedly a "public research university" -- there are multiple sources (notably from FAU) to substantiate that claim.

On FAU's "Explore FAU" page[1]:

"FAU is earning a reputation as a top research institution in areas ranging from biomedicine and biotechnology to ocean engineering and coastline security."

On the Princeton Review[2] website for FAU:

"Florida Atlantic University is a public research university with multiple campuses..."

For the Fairfield Inn Suites that serves FAU[3]:

"Florida Atlantic University is a public research university with multiple campuses along the southeast Florida coast serving a uniquely diverse community."

And the most compelling evidence, on FAU's "History" page [4]:

In recognition of the University's research funding and doctoral programs, the Division of Colleges and Universities of the Florida Board of Education has designated FAU as a research university. Additionally, FAU has been classified as a "Research University - High Research Activity" by Carnegie.

It's in the mission statement. These cannot be ignored. FAU may not yet be one of the "big dogs" in Florida but to say that a university is "not enough of a research university" is an interpretation that does not negate the forementioned facts. So I support the change. Go Owls 04:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Find Another University discussion

I've notice there seems to be an editing war between Interestingstuffadder and KnightLago. I feel any discussion about deleting/adding the nickname should be discussed on the article's talk page. I feel both of you have good reasons to include/exclude the nickname, but I also feel that neither of you has the ultimate authority deciding if it stays or goes. In that case I propose that we have a discussion and see what other users think is an appropriate outcome. I propose that the nickname stay but with an explanation that it is seen as negative by some students/faculty/etc. Any other suggestions? Evill72 13:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed compromise. Interestingstuffadder 13:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine, I think we should open it up and see what the general consensus is KnightLago 21:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It should not be included. It is a slang nickname and the evidence to back it up is an article citing "some students". This is not encyclopedic material. Many schools have derisive nicknames given to them (usually by students at other schools) which are not even considered for inclusion in their article.-- 23:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I say keep it. As a South Floridian, I have been hearing this nickname for a long long time. It is one that pretty much everyone knows. The article provided is from a major Florida newspaper. It is okay to have a POV in wikipedia if it is attributed to some 3d party (or parties). This one is. Though the source could be better, the notability of the columnist and newspaper itself serves as evidence of the nickame's widespead usage. Captaintruth 03:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is totally inappropriate. There are numerous acronyms that could be positively attached to FAU, yet they are not present in the article. As a student at FAU, I find it offensive that only a negative conoctation be associated with FAU by means of word play. This is supossed to be a factually based site, not an opinionated blog. What if a perspective student were to look up FAU and come across the acronym? Maybe that student would get a negative impression and choose to go elsewhere. This is the only opinion piece in the entire article and sticks out like a sore thumb. Wikipedia has an obligation to present facts, not childish wisecracks. It must be omitted or Wikipedia looses credibility. 67.22.224.60 20:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)ndphil21

If you bothered to read wikipedia guidelines, you would find that opinions are completely fine if attributed to some source. Here, the opinion is attributed to a well known columnist in Florida's most widely circulated and arguably best respected newspaper. This columnist himself is among florida's best respected political columnists. what a prospective student might think about FAU is not a valid wikipedia justification for anything. If you have positive information to add that can be properly referenced to a verifiable source, please go ahead and add it. It is not my job to find that information for you. Wikipedia is not a viewbook. Interestingstuffadder 22:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me what function this information serves? What is useful about it? Why is it pertinent? Just because some columnist decided to write it down? Good for the columnist that they are well known. Good for newspaper that it is the most circulated and best respected. So what. And I have read the guidelines. I understand the policy regarding opinions. But when there is only one opinion cited in an entire article, and a negative one at that, and it appears at the end of the article, it looks totally idiotic. It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. If it's offensive to people, get it out of there. It doesn't belong. I'm a firm believer in free speech, but as I said; this isn't a blog. It's an online encyclopedia. Save the opinions for the columns in the newspapers. I think it's sad that some people try to use this website as a vehicle for their own ambitions in order to express negative commentary towards a school of higher learning. Those people need to check their values.J-Dog 16:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A little googling shows that a number of FAU students have posted this little back-derivation on blogs and school review sites. It can be verified to be in use. It's a minor point, but we don't remove facts just because someone doesn't like them. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, if you are looking for balance, feel free to post a postive opinion about FAU that is attributed to a notable source and is verifiable. Eg, does FAU have a program that is highly ranked by a well known national or regional ranking? Did a president of the united states refer to FAU as "the future of american higher education"? etc? etc? However, the fand another university bit is notable and verifiable and thus meets wikipedia inclusion standards, whether or not you find it offensive. Interestingstuffadder 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, i will ask the reference's pertinence. Why does it desreve to be in here? What is so valuable about this quote? Becuse it officially appeared in a column? Go back and read the actual column. The quote has nothing to do with the spirit and or body of the piece. The article has to do with Bush, not FAU. But you know what? In the end, if people feel like using an encylopedia as a vehicle for their own agenda, well I guess that's on them. That's something that those people have to live with. I pitty people that shallow that they sit there and point like little children to a column and say, "See? See? I told you so! He said it first!" That's a shame. Good luck with that, hope it works out for you. If some really believe that a little snippet of useless and bias information is as good as a "fact," well then all I have to say is, whatever you need to believe that gets you through the day. J-Dog 13:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

    • There seems to be no consensus regarding how to resolve this. What is the next step to resolve this issue as far as Wikipedia is concerned? BTW, I am not referring to anyone in particular, so don't take offense or start calling me names or accusing me of a platform, but is it not true that even students at the actual university say "find another university." (forgot to sign, sorry Evill72 23:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC))
    • Actually, the more common sarcastic commentary is the recent "football and undergrads". I've lived in Boca for 5 years now, and I've never heard a single human being ever refer to the school as "find another university". Student, faculty, or otherwise. None. Not a one. I made an attempt to add to the article in the middle and at the end of the original commentary. I feel it is fair to all. All I did was add some fact to the statement, and leave the former as is. If I had my way, the entire statement would be deleated. However, I am willing to compromise as long as there is the presence of context. Please see "history" if my edit is not visable in the article. Also, the [3] citation is incorrect. It references Rice University football, not Florida Atlantic University. J-Dog 20:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • As a native of the boca area, I have heard "find another univesity" countless times from numerous people, so I guess our experiences conflict. Either way, the citations do make this verifiable (and if you read the rice citation fau as find another university is in there). I think we are approaching a consensus on the appropriate wording. And, again, I urge you to find some verifiable positibve information to add to the misc section. Interestingstuffadder 20:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Did you read the [3] citation? Down in the second article, in connection with Rice's opponent University of Central Florida having the nickname "Under Construction Forever", is the line, Hey, it's a lot better than what those same wags say about UCF's sister state school, Florida Atlantic, over in Boca Raton. They say that, over there, FAU stands for "Find Another University." It seems to be known out in Texas. Hmmm!, here's The University Press On-line at Florida Atlantic University using it[5]. If it doesn't display for you, try registering and looking for "New admissions standards: good for FAU, bad for Florida by Dan Restrepo. Issue date: 2/5/04 Section: Opinions". Now some cites for FAU students using the term (you may have to search down the page): [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. Oh, and I live Delray, and have heard it for years. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think there is a consensus either way. I also do not think the wording is correct, as a nickname that most Florida natives have never heard is not factual nor relevant to Wikipedia. As I have said before, there are derogatory nicknames for every university in the world. Just because it ends up in an opinion piece in a newspaper does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. If we were to add nicknames to university pages it would only serve to clutter pages with hundreds of nicknames. I am not familiar with the next step of the dispute process, but I also think it is clear that is what needs to happen next. Do you know what the next step is InterestingStuff? KnightLago 20:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what the next step is. At the same time, I have not seen evidence that there are so many nicknames that, like this one, meet the wikipedia standards for inclusion (notability & verifiability). I also see no evidence on this or other university pages that your fear of wikipedia being cluttered with these nicknames (assuming that many are as notable / verifiable of this one) has actually come to pass. The present situation seems to me to be that users are attempting to get this deleted because it offends them personally (POV) despite the fact that it meets wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Interestingstuffadder 20:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I would argue that a false acronym is also a point of view. Considering we all know what FAU really stands for, any other use of FAU as an acronym that differs from the official meaning is artificial and therefore is a point of view. Can anyone prove that statement to be false? J-Dog 00:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that a false acronym is POV. But wikipedia policy does not prohibit all POV statements. POV content attributed to notable, verifiable sources (and thus acknowledged as POV) are legitimately includable in articles. The fact of the matter is that many opinions and much properly attributed POV is encyclopedic. As I've said many times, I would have no problem whatsoever with you adding POV content positive toward FAU to this article, so ling as it is attributed to a notable, verifiable source. Interestingstuffadder 01:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I hear you, and I will take that under consideration. If something comes up, I may just do that. One question to whomever. Do citations from Myspace and blog sies count as verifiable sources? Just curious, because I noticed that someone felt compelled to supply a plethora of such citations. Funny, because the most insignificant fact, or POV, whichever you prefer, somehow recieved 8 citations. 8?!? Did someone's ego take a beating so they felt they needed to overdose the rest of the general public with cute little footnotes in order to validate themselves? Just a question for that person to ponder... J-Dog 18:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


This page is not the correct place for university nicknames. There already is a nickname page with university nicknames. See Stanford's nickname, and note that it is not found on the Stanford page. Please place the nickname on that page if you so desire. I have removed the nickname again. KnightLago 23:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury if you are going to revert the edit you need to comment on something. The nickname page clearly shows where other university nicknames are placed. And not placed on the individual university pages. Is there some reason why the nickname is special and doesn't deserve to be on the nickname page like all the others? KnightLago 02:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia policy saying the nicknames article is the be all end all. This nickname is notable and verifiable (as demonstrated) with regard to FAU. As for the blog/myspace cites, although they alone are not sufficient to support this assertion (and they do not need to be because we also have cites that are sufficient), their inclusion is merited as secondary cites to reinforce the widespread usage of this expression. Interestingstuffadder 06:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I did give a reason for the reversion in the edit summary. We have been discussing this item here for a few days now, and it was bad form to arbitrarily delete the item when the trend here was towards a consensus to keep. I know of no policy or guideline that calls for nicknames to be kept out of articles on a subject, and nicknames are commonly added to articles about places (look at all the articles on big cities). And this nickname is better documented than the nicknames that have been added to a lot of other articles. I might add that the motive stated by other editors for removing this nickname has been that it disparages the university. That is a POV position. We don't remove information from an article just because it is negative. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • SO, we don't remove info because of POV. Hmm... interesting. The entire statement in the first place is a POV! Why can't people see that?!? Unbelievable. J-Dog 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Why can't you understand what I have said numerous times -- opinions are fine on wikipedia so long as they are attributed to a notable source and such source is verifiable. The three decent references here provide the needed reference. What is impermissable POV is your crusade to protect the reputation of the univeristy by excluding notable and verifiable information. Interestingstuffadder 15:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Who decides what is and isn't a "notable" source? J-Dog 15:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Consensus. Although it seems difficult to argue that a well respected columnist in Florida's top newspaper, a mention in FAU's own student newspaper, and a mention in another university'[s newspaper (all of which have been provided as sources) are not notable, especially when taken in aggregate. Interestingstuffadder 15:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know, call me learning disabled then. I just don't understand how the entire article on FAU is filled with %99.9 fact and yet the very last addition happens yo contain a POV, notable, verifiable, or whatever. It's still an opinion, and opinion is not fact. Thoughts, feelings and opinions are not facts, they never will be. It just doesn't belong here. Am I defending the school? You bet I am. I'm a student there, I pay tuition there, and it's helping me move closer to my ultimate goal which I will be eternally grateful for. But with all that aside, my argument is that POV's don't belong anywhere in Wikipedia. I think the policy and or guidelines are wrong if they allow POV's... in any article. When I look up an article on Wikipedia, I expect to find concrete, black and white facts. Let me ask you this: If there was an editorial in a national newspaper that said that the North Koreans were an evil people, would that be enough to put in the article? Even though we could cite the source as notable and verifiable, could we also note the statement as notable and verifiable? No, we could not. We can't do this with the current acronym either. You say there are multiple notable and verifiable citations to support the statement. Well, I have one that negats all three. It's called the Florida Atlantic University handbook. In there it has no reference to "find another university". Should I post that here? J-Dog 15:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
First, unclear what the univeristy handbook not including this has to do with anything, why would it include a widely known negative nickname. As for the North Korea example, if in fact there were legitimate sources evidencing a widely held (though false) belief that the North Korean people are evil, the fact that this widely held belief exists would absolutely be includable in a wikipedia article on North Korea, per guidelines. Wikipedia policy, whether you agree with it or not, is based on the simple fact that sometimes opinions are notable. For example, see New Deal, especially toward the end in which the opinions of notable economists are discussed. Would you really argue that the different sides of the debate over the legacy of the New Deal should not be presented in an encyclopedia article simply because this debate consiste of opinions? In reality, any encyclopedia would include these opinions because they are a notable part of the discussion of the subject matter. Although out debate deals with less weighty issues, the basic idea of the same. A complete discussion of FAU does include positive and negative opinions (negative opinions as evidenced by the nickname) held about it. I personally have a high opinion of FAU, but no institution is perfect or has a perfect reputation -- this is why wikipedia must strive for a balanced approach that includes the good and the bad. Interestingstuffadder 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll say it again; opinions are not facts. It's been that way since the begining of time, and it will be that way until the end of time, no matter what Wikipedia's stance is on this issue. Is there a process I can engage to debate the policy on POV's? Because I think the policy is garbage. J-Dog 16:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have an article that states the opposite to this claim. [11] Why shouldn't this be included as well? And by the way, you're right; it is a fact that an opinion has been stated, but the opinion is not a fact. The only fact that is 100% true is that FAU stands for the actual university name, not whatever "some people claim". Perhaps the wording needs to be revised again in order to clean it up. I understand that the statement "some people claim..." is a fact, because as cited, some have said so. But their claim remains an opinion, and they are indeed wrong. If anyone ever wanted to dispute this, try typing "find another university" in the Wikipedia search box. FAU doesn't come up. And, when you type "FAU" in the search box, one option is the school, but no option exists for what some claim it stands for. Hence, what they claim is false. J-Dog 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You found an article that acknowledges that "Find Another University" has been used as a nickname, and implies that it is no longer appropriate. So? It is a fact that "Find Another University" has been used as a nickname for FAU. Whether or not it is still, or ever was, a useful description of FAU is an opinion. You want to remove a fact from the article because you have a negative opinion of it. Oh, and the Wikipedia search is notoriously unreliable. Search Google for "Find Another University" FAU, and you will see the Wikipedia article at the top of the list, along with a lot of other hits. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • First off, I'll decide why I want something removed, not you. I already explained why I would like it removed and that reason is six paragraphs above. So please don't twist my words. Or shall I properlly cite myself... Secondly, let me explain myself a little bit better; it seems that you did not understand me. What other people claim, is and always will be an opinion. An official name is just that. Official. My name is what my parents gave me, regardless of what anyone on this planet claims. I don't care if an award winning writer were to "claim" otherwise, my name is still what it is. With that being said, billions of people could claim that FAU stands for whatever they want it to stand for, following their own motives and or ambitions. However, it is up to FAU to decide what its official name is. Some peoples' claims do not mean squat when it comes down to hardline irrefutable fact; FAU stands for, and always will stand for, Florida Atlantic University. Nobody can argue the truth there. If anyone can find a snippet to refute that fact, I'd love to see it posted. J-Dog 18:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


    • And again, nicknames for other schools have not been posted on their pages. See the nickname page and the Stanford page and note the lack of nicknames. See other major universities and note the lack of nicknames. This doesn't mean there aren't any, it just means that they are not relevant to the article. Even if they were published in a newspaper article. It seems to me that some people have an axe to grind against the school. The nickname is an opinion of a newspaper. As J-Dog said, just because it was offered as an opinion in a paper does not mean it is relevant to Wikipedia, a site dedicated to factual information. Nicknames are not factual and do not offer anything to advance the cause of Wikipedia. KnightLago 03:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am an alumni of FAU. As far as I am concerned, anything derogatory doesn't belong. These articles are not for editors amusement and/or other rival college posters who think it is funny to display negative commentary on the page. If I see FAU bashing on the page, I will consider removing it. The next step will be contacting what ever administration runs this site.

And by the way, you may be an "alumnus" or an "alumna" of FAU, but unless you are multiple people (which you could be, somehow a little sockpuppetry doesn't seem unimaginable) you are not "an alumni" of the university. In fact, even if you are multiple people and "alumni" is the correct tense to use, you should work on your subject-verb agreement. Just a thought. Interestingstuffadder 02:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You obviously haven't read wikipedia's policy regarding neutral point of view. The standard for inclusion is notability and verifiability, which has been met here. That is, the standard is not whether the information added is negative or positive. I encourage you to find mor positive notable and verifiable information -- there is already a lot here. All I am striving for is balance, by including a bit of widely known trivia about the university. Interestingstuffadder 02:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse my error in tense. I was more concerned with making my point and you seem more concerned with pissing people off. I guess this is how you get your kicks. If you have no connection with this university, student, alumnus, faculty, etc, I see no reason for you to be amusing yourself with adding content that is controversial with people attached to the university. Even if you do have some connection, I still think it in bad taste that you add things that most of us think is not good publicity for FAU. You have your ideas on how this article should look and I have mine!!! Go add controversy to another college's article! interestngstuffedit 22:48, 19 July 2006

  • Ok, it's so obvious to all of us here that someone has decided to continue to add garbage to this article. I do believe that same someone has now challenged two people to add positive info. Well, why don't you lead by example? For every negative piece you add, why not add a positive piece? Or do you not try to do that? Just a challenge that you have put forward to others. Let's see if you aren't too shallow to take your own advice. We'll see, actions speak louder than words. The gauntlet has been thrown down... J-Dog 05:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, perhaps some should review this link. Check yourself; you know who you are. [12]

  • How is this garbage if it is notable and verifiable? What I have added is completely within wikipedia guidelines. There is no rule saying I need a connection to the university and there is nothing saying I must also add positive info, so long as what I add is notable and verifiable. As for the positive/negative balance, this article is still 95% positive, some bordering on boosterism. The fact is, any large institution has its positive and negative aspects. Why do you people have such a problem with balance? Interestingstuffadder 13:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Because of the way that some have chosen to go about it. It's like there are a couple of users here that are acting like a board of governers that decide what a POV is, what is verifiable, what is balanced and what is not, and those that protest are shot down. Wikipedia doesn't belong to any one person, it belongs to us all, and we all have a voice. 95% of the article is NOT positive, it's mundane facts, which is the way it should be. I could care less if there is a single word that's positive; that's not what some of us are here for. But we sure as hell aren't going to sit here and tollerate a barage of negative info, one after another, if there isn't an even input of positive info. You want to add a negative fact? Add a positive one too, or don't add anything. Either get some balance, or the people that have a problem with this will take it to a higher level. Consensus is not being followed here, and that breaks any kind of encyclopedic intent whatsoever. What is yor goal in providing info that is clearly negative in nature? All you add is negative, nothing is positive. Have you not seen that? Are you unable to alternate between negative and positive? What are your motives here? What are you after? I've stated my position, I'm the only one that has. Anyone else want to offer an explination for their actions? J-Dog 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The "board of governors" you speak of is merely a couple of users who, unlike you, seem to actually know something about wikipedia standards for inclusion. They are also both experienced users with well over 1,000 edits. I have not motives other than to add notable information. FAU's efforts to raise admission standards (often in the face of oppositon from the state, about which I intend to add icontent to this article when I get a chance to track down good sources) has gotten a lot of press in South Florida in the last few years and definitely merits inclusion. The find another university nickname is extremel

y widely used in South Florida and thus notable -- this notability, as well as the verifiability (the other element needed for inclusion) is further evidenced by the articles I cited to (these articles, if you look around wikipedia, are very much in line with the types of sources that are considered to be adequete). As for consensus, right now the disagreement seems to be between two users for inclusion and two opposed, with the two in favor being, as discussed above, experienced users with a demonstrated understanding of wikipedia policies. I really have no motives other than making the article more complete. I very well might add some information that would be considered positive (I am thinking of adding info about a program that is currently not mentioned but is notable), but I have no obligation to do so sofar as the information I add, be it "negative" or "positive" is notable and verifiable. Interestingstuffadder 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't need 1,000 edits, 1,000,000 edits or even 1 edit to understand the guidelines. I've read them top to bottom, thank you very much. Experience does not guarantee that one has knowledge or ethics, so please do not try to qualify yourself to anyone. The bottom line is, like you said yourself, there is no majority in this matter. One does not have to have a resume in order to have a voice. What some of us are questioning are some people's motives, and action speaks louder than words. There is currently an unbalanced ammount of information that is being added to this article, and that is the problem. I would expect that someone with such a travelled field of experience in editing in the name of notable and verifiable information such as yourself would know that. But like I said, time and accomplishments do not always equal wisdom. J-Dog 19:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just came upon this page, and this debate via the Boca Raton, Florida page and thought I might add my two cents. I agree with the above users who argue that both the nickname and the admissions information should be retained. As for the nickname, I am from South Florida and can reaffirm that "find another university" is well known and widely used, plus quality cites have been provided for it. As for the admissions information (and really also the nickname, to an extent), one of the more pertinent facts about FAU at this point in its history is that it is making an effort to become a more respected and prominent university. The fact is, FAU has traditionally been (or has at least been perceived as) a commuter school and, to be blunt, a frequent back-up plan for students who couldn't get into UF. FAU is trying hard to change that image, but has run up to opposition in trying to raise its standards. This process has been a notbale part of the university's recent history -- as an above user mentioned -- and I hope he or someone else adds more details (I may well do this, if I get a chance...I've been pretty busy with life lately). But to talk about this transition it is worth mntioning where FAU came from (and still is) by mentioning the not-so-impressive past admissions statistics and the unflattering nickname that is still used by many to describe the university. That said, I would like to see this article be more balanced; however, the way to get to that balance is by adding content so that the article fully reflects the good, the bad, and the ugly about FAU. The way to achieve this balance is not by reverting additions of notable and verifiable information about the university that happens to be unpleasant. Also, I see a lot of discussions about motives above. Frankly, I don't care what an editor's motives are. We all have biases (including, it seems, those who oppose adding this material). What matters is that information on wikipedia is notable and verifiable. If the users who have been fighting so hard to exclude this material would instead focus on expanding the article, this article would be more balanced by virtue of editors with conflicting biases adding toward the article and working towards consensus on the basis of notability and verifiability rather than on the basis of whether an addition reflects well or poorly on the school. Just a thought. Captaintruth 22:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


  • I dont see FSU's page anywhere stating some people referring to it as Florida's Shittiest University, or University of Miami's page listing it being known as Suntan U. Codenoid 13:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)codenoid


If you canfind a source for that nickname, feel free to add it to FSU's page. Interestingstuffadder 12:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the "Find Another University" reference until someone adds "Communist News Network" to CNN. I'm sure you can find some blogger or so called "famous journalist" that has made a reference to CNN's nickname.

Please note the long discussion, which reached a compromise. Please do not ignore all of this. What appears on any other article has nothing to do with this one. And I don't think some random blogger is anywhere near as good a source as one of Florida's leading political writers, which is the source provided here. Interestingstuffadder 13:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. There is an unverified change to the "Find Another University" line: "...while it may be popular with students..." Please provide a notable source explicitly indicating that the phrase "Find Another University" is currently 'popular with students'. Otherwise, whether it is 'popular' or not falls under the category of your 'analysis' and Wikipedia, as Donald noted, is 'not interested in your analysis.' Go Owls 22:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Does anyone have photos that they might want to add? KnightLago 12:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • How about a google earth shot of the boca campus? J-Dog 12:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There are some great pictures of some facilities on the FAU sports message board. They are on the pictures forum on the bottom. You might want to look.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.20.204 (talk • contribs)
Those photos are almost certainly under copyright, and we can't use them unless a fair use justification can be made. -- Donald Albury 13:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The guy who took them was on vacation and posted them just for the heck of it. He participates in the sports discussions on the board. I will contact him personally.
  • I currently attend FAU (Boca Raton campus). I'd be happy to take some pictures for the website. Is there a certain size required? Also, what would you like me to do once I upload them here? Go Owls 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Athletics

We should create a dedicated athletics section.

  • Ok, you first!
    • There are a couple of pages floating around the 'net speaking very highly of the FAU baseball team...

GPS Coordinates

Does anyone know how to add the university's gps coordinates to the top of the page like other schools? See Duke University. Thanks KnightLago 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go.CptnSkippy 21:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Major Revision

I am in the process of doing a major revision of this article. I hope to get the article to WP:GA status or maybe someday even WP:FA status. The article I am working on is at my userspace here, under the FAU section. Anyone wishing to participate is welcome. I chose to put it on my userspace so I could work at my own pace and make major edits at the same time. Again, anyone is welcome to help. Also, if anyone has a problem with this please let me know so we can discuss it. Thanks. KnightLago 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Revert 11.08.06

Looks like someone accidentally removed some text and informed the world he/she wanted to go there. Reverted back to before their changes. Also - regarding the misc. [[13]] do we need to details of the PD thing? Could we leave it at the first line. 'The FAU police department has had four sex-related investigations and six police chiefs and upper-command staff resign in the past three years.' What do you think? 131.91.220.27 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Campus Life

I created a campus life section and kicked it off with information on Greek Life. I plan on expanding this and encourage everyone else too as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamais vu (talk • contribs) 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Remember that all material added to Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources (no original research). -- Donald Albury 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Commuter school"

There is a line in the main FAU summary noting that FAU is "predominantly a commuter school".

While I don't necessarily disagree, I'm having trouble finding a concrete line for when a school is a commuter school versus when it isn't... the line seems fairly arbitrary. Wikipedia does not have a page on it, likely for this very reason.

Since FAU is growing at such a tremendous rate, it seems only fair to come to a consensus on when the title of "commuter school" would no longer apply since it is damaging to FAU's ability to attract students seeking a "traditional university". Although Wikipedia is not to be used for marketing purposes, it IS to be used for reporting truth.

Now, intuition provides that a "commuter" title be given to a school that has mostly -- if not all -- students who live off-campus. However, UCF has only 2% more total students living on campus (FAU, 8%, 'commuter' in summary; UCF, 10%, no mention of 'commuter' in summary) yet is not considered "predominantly commuter".

I don't wish to classify UCF as predominantly commuter -- I think all students from the Florida universities should get along -- so I would propose that "commuter school" be reserved for a university without student housing or resident population under 1,000 people.

Thoughts? Go Owls 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can find plenty of sites on the web that refer to FAU as a 'commuter school': [http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities/FL/Florida_Atlantic_University.html], [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18], for example. It's not for us to define what is a 'commuter school', but to just report what others have said. -- Donald Albury 00:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, although some of your links do not support your argument.

The problem is that it's not written in a neutral point of view. Much like the use of "major" in "major state-run university" from the FIU article, these words are used to either devalue or promote these schools. You know as well as I do that people who see the phrase "FAU is predominantly-commuter" will believe that FAU is not a "real college." (which of course it is)

It's in this article because someone wants the school to appear that way.

I'm fine with amending the article to "report what others have said." The phrase should be amended similar to the way "Find Another University" was amended: "While several individuals contend that FAU is a predominantly-commuter school, in recent years..."

Although Wikipedia shoots for verifiability rather than truth (an odd goal, to be sure), the general public serching for FAU on Wikipedia is more interested in truth... not the National Enquirer's take on Florida Atlantic University. Go Owls 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the wording Go Owls has offered. I think anyone using Wikipedia as a guide to enroll would also look at "commuter school" as a negative tick, and is a good segue into the image change FAU is working on.CptnSkippy 21:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I see something wrong. FAU is a commuter school right now. It has that reputation because it is. It is even reported in the press as such. Not the National Enquirer, but the mainstream media. Adding something like several people.... just makes the sentence sound bad. If multiple published accounts call it a commuter school, then it is. And that shouldn't be diluted as you are trying to do. KnightLago 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Some may find it odd that I am saying this, since I have been characterized as an FAU-basher on this talk page in the past (see the "find another university" discussion), but I think that adding something like "some sources consider FAU to be a commuter school, although there is no clear definition of what constitutes a commuter school" (or whatever consensus arrives at) makes sense. This term clearly (per evidence offered in this discussion) has no clear objective meaning. Moreover, FAU is a school that is rapidly becoming more residential in character. As such, there is a legitimate disagreement over whether FAU is still a commuter school (it indisputably once was one, though,and not very long ago ... the school's evolution could even be mentioned in the compromise language, as this evolution seems like a very notable fact about the school). Given this legitimate disagreement and the difficulty of defining "commuter school", qualifying language makes sense here. Interestingstuffadder 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
But to imply that it is a commuter school sounds to me like they don't offer any housing at all. The Boca campus houses 2400+ students right now, and when the newest dorm opens will top over 3000. Perhaps it could be word smithed like ISA stated to include the evolution so it doesn't sound "bad"131.91.212.151 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad others have recognized the issue here. I've also noticed that someone has taken the liberty of adding a link to the AACSB Internaional Business School profile in an effort to validate their decision to keep the "commuter school" title. Unfortunately, whoever posted the link failed to realize that the Business page does not support their argument: the profile is for the College of Business, not the entire university, and furthermore the mention of "commuter" applies specifically to the characteristics section of the "business student" section. Again, this is not applying to the university as a whole. The designation for "commuter" in the link is a result of the 'AACSB International 2003-2004 Business School Questionnaire', which merely proves that commuter students attend the College of Business and nothing more. As an FAU student with friends in the College of Business, I can tell you firsthand that many of the students in the Business program are, in fact, commuter students because they work during the day and seek out their degree at night. Which is fine, but you won't find that sort of situation in all the FAU colleges. The link is therefore unacceptable and should be removed.

The fact is that the statement from the main summary doesn't need to be there at all. "Commuter school" is not a mathematical certainty but a statement placed here and defended by people who obviously are not neutral on the issue.

What's important is not what Tom-Dick-Harry have said in random off-color quotes across the web, but what FAU itself subscribes to. The Princeton Review Online has a statement from the school describing FAU.[19] It says, in part, "Florida Atlantic University is a public research university with multiple campuses along the southeast Florida coast serving a uniquely diverse community". This is a true statement which has no negative connotation inserted as a result of bias.

The U.S. News and World Report has a statement from FAU that states, in part: "Florida Atlantic University is a public university committed through its distributed campus structure to providing access to challenging opportunities in higher education for students in Southeast Florida and beyond." [20]

I'd like to suggest a compromise here. For the main summary, we include a statement more similar to the above statements made by FAU to describe the school to the public. In the Miscellaneous section, we'll include a statement to the effect that multiple online sources have, in the past, called FAU a commuter school. That way we have a true statement that says, "So-and-so says FAU is a commuter school" which, as noted in another section, is acceptable as fact, whereas "FAU is a commuter school" is an opinion and therefore is not fact. Go Owls 02:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to not like Wikipedia's verifiability policy (where it says, "verifiability, not truth"). The simple fact is that there are published reliable sources that describe FAU as a commuter school. If you want to tone that down or remove it, you need to find published reliable sources that say that FAU is not a commuter school. Your opinion and/or analysis don't count. What counts is what published sources say. That's our policy. -- Donald Albury 00:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting policy. You are correct in your assessment -- my personal feeling is that an encyclopedia should value "verifiability" AND "truth", because otherwise the encyclopedia is no more than a glorified gossip magazine. In essence, fifty people said FAU is a commuter school, here are the links, so FAU is a commuter school. Easy. I'm curious -- to defend the notion of "FAU is a commuter school", you've posted a link saying "Business student characteristics: commuter". It does NOT say "FAU is a commuter school". Take a look. And look again. It's not there. That's an INTERPRETATION of what it says. The connection between what is written on that site and what is written on this site is fact an analysis of that link and you have just stated that Wikipedia is not interested in [our] analysis. Care to explain why the link is valid and supports the argument? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Go Owls (talk • contribs) 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
I find this argument problematic. As a resident of the Boca area, I can attest that the perception of FAU as a "commuter school" is widely held. We can back up this perception with multiple sources. Although I am all for including language eg "some say" or (if we can find a source for it) a discussion of how FAU has become less of a commuter school, one can hardly say that the assertion that FAU is a commuter school lacks some "truth". Interestingstuffadder 14:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Interestingstuffadder. My comment above was related to the link posted next to "commuter school" in the main summary. The link, as I pointed out, does not say in any terms that FAU is or isn't a "commuter school" but only that the site lists the business student characteristic as "commuter". It's in regard to Business students, not all students. You see that, right? To extrapolate that to justify the idea of FAU as a commuter school is an interpretation and thus analysis of what it says, not a replication of what it says. Since Donald has informed us that Wikipedia policy is not interested in original research or analysis (saying something is "predominantly" commuter sounds like analysis to me... where is the link that says "predominantly commuter school?") it is therefore inappropriate to support that statement. If you can find a link that says quite clearly: "FAU is a commuter school" or "FAU, the commuter school", I would support it. So the point is to correct the link. I'm aware that you can find multiple sources calling FAU a "commuter school", that your own personal experience provides anecdotes of people calling it a "commuter school", and as I mentioned before I don't disagree with this (because obviously the various sources are there). I actually brought up the issue with a number of individuals and they had never thought about why it was even applied anymore. I did disagree with the usage based on concept (as I argued before and you agreed that there are no functional parameters for it), especially since I've verified that, for instance, UF, UCF, and FSU all have "predominantly-commuter" student populations. It makes sense, of course; schools with 20-50k+ students cannot and arguably should not have on-campus housing for all of those students. So my argument was always that either we should note all of these schools as "predominantly-commuter" or we should say to ourselves, "Well, the fact that universites are predominantly-commuter is common sense and therefore we don't need to point it out", much like we wouldn't say, "FAU's College of Business sits on a piece of land which is part of the Earth's crust." Obviously. As an FAU student who has worked with current students of UCF, UF, and FSU, I understand that these individuals have school spirit and like to refer to FAU as "just a commuter school" to justify the fact that they don't want to go here (much like they refer to UCF as a "party school" to justify the fact that they would rather go to UF, which they consider more academically-oriented). My concern on Wikipedia (and I am not alone, from the discussions above) is that individuals who are opposing this are hiding behind a series of poorly-researched, half-baked websites and MySpace blurbs to oppress FAU for their own personal interest. Of course this is happening and of course I'm trying to oppose it. This is my school spirit. I came here to correct the misinformation placed on this page by individuals who are not current students, who never were students, and/or have no affiliation with the university whatsoever, yet they're making officious edits to the effect of, "Find Another University is popular with students" when in fact, it is not. I know this because I'm a current senior, I know many many many people on all levels from students to administration, I work for the school newspaper, and have never heard it once. Never. If I had, I would agree with it. Our experiences are equal but different in this regard. You've heard it from multiple people, I've not heard it from anyone ever and I've been here all four years. That tells me that people outside of the school are misinformed and spreading a bad reputation about FAU for some personal gain I can only imagine. And it's a little insulting to posit that what people outside of the campus are saying about what's happening on campus is more important than what people on the actual campus are saying. But on Wikipedia if you have the links, you have the power, so inevitably it's your interpretation that counts. I just have vast experience and multiple links by FAU officials that call FAU a "public research university" without mention to "commuter school" -- apparently those are irrelevant here? I proposed before that the mention of commuter school be added to the Miscellaneous section; in both instances the information is on the FAU page but one instance is contentious and damaging whereas the other instance is fair and gives qualifying information to justify the usage of the term. I don't see why there is an opposition to that since it would retain the "commuter school" concept that you believe merits inclusion on the official Wikipedia site for FAU. Would you agree that this is a more suitable alternative so we can fix it and end this discussion once and for all? Go Owls 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article

"Longer time to graduate swells debt" in today's Sun-Sentinel has a quote that relates indirectly to FAU's status as a commuter school: "[FAU] serves more older and part-time students than average." Another interesting comment is,

In addition, FAU has traditionally had low admissions standards. For the first time this year, the university stopped admitting students whose test scores showed they need remedial work.
"We took in students who had no business attending the university and then were amazed when they didn't do well," FAU President Frank Brogan said.

I'm not sute if or how this should be included in the article. Any comments? -- Donald Albury 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems significant enough for inclusion. I would put it under academics, or that disgusting "Miscellaneous" section toward the bottom (which is cheap, actually, everything there could probably be incorporated into some part of the article or removed). Bastiq▼e demandez 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, I don't think it tells us any new information. I do think it would be a better link than the current link after the phrase "commuter school" in the main summary.Go Owls 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

FAU: A cradle of Gay/Lesbian activism in South Florida

The Gay Academic Union of Florida Atlantic University, the third oldest L/G/B/T college organization in Florida, was founded in the late autumn of 1974. The University of Miami and the University of Florida had established gay organizations only a year or two prior. At the time, the GAU of FAU was the first L/G/B/T organization in Palm Beach County. This organization attracted many members, published a monthly newsletter and sponsored both educational and social events. Two years before the founding of the GAU, student Joel Michael Starkey (1946 -1992) was elected to the Student Government Association - the first openly gay student to achieve this, but shortly after GAU founder and president Mark N. Silber (b.1954)was the second openly gay member of the SGA. This organization played a notable role in the history of gay activism as the first such group in Palm Beach County and northern Broward County. 69.139.182.222 04:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)buddmar

Notable alumni

I've removed the long list. There's a main page anyway. Here it is if anyone has a prob.

SuzanneKn 22:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

University Presidents

I think you had better check Brogan's education. I do not believe he studied law at FSU. His masters is from FAU and I believe he is currently working on his PHD. If you look at the wikipedia article on Brogan, it doesn't mention FSU but does mention Cincinnati and FAU.--74.139.195.32 03:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.43.88.120 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Fixed.

New template

I made a new FAU template to put at the bottom of this page and other pages. I changed it from the old one because I think this looks more professional and easier to read. I had a problem with the colors of the other one. Too much red, not enought blue and white. I also didn't think the names of all restaurants on campus (Starbucks, Burger King...) where relevant because there is nothing special about them on campus. I also removed the list of every single fraternity, and the other junk needed to be removed.

All titles in black are articles that need to be created. So if you are looking for something to do have a go at it. I am going to try and create/cleanup the articles in the template over the next few weeks.

If anyone has questions or comments please let me know, I am open to discussion and change. KnightLago 20:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed about the campus restaurants and fraternities.
  • Could you change the boxes on the left to have red backgrounds and white text? The white text would then become yellow after they've been visited. I understand what you're saying about making the box easy to read, but I do think it's important to preserve the red and blue since they are school colors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.109.45.122 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 May 2007.

I will play with the colors and see how they look. Also, don't forget to sign your comments. KnightLago 23:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)