Talk:University of Arizona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as B-importance on the importance scale.
Peer review University of Arizona has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has a lot of references, which is great, but there are numbers everywhere, out of order, and repeating between the footnotes and external links. Might it be better to pare down the references or reorganize them a bit? Cpastern 23:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Should be U of A

Having just graduated from the U of A in May, I cant recall a single instance of the UA abbreviation coming up. It is "U of A". Also under strong research departments you should include the computer science department which has one of the highest published article rates per a faculty member in the country. As claimed by the department: "The most recent National Research Council rankings place the department 16th among public Ph.D.-granting institutions nationwide. It is ranked the best computer science department of its size (15-20 faculty) among publicly funded Universities, is ranked first in number of citations of papers per faculty member, and is ranked 17th overall in publications per faculty."

http://www.cs.arizona.edu/research/

One of the things you have to get used to when speaking about the U of A is how much stronger the graduate programs are than the undergraduate programs are in general.


Jeremiahrounds 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Trust me, UA is a common abbreviation. If you check the UA style guide it says that UA is the preferred abbreviation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.199.133 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Shortening the UA Article

We need some input on a) whether the UA article needs to be shortened (as it's not 30kb), and b) how to best go about doing that. So far some pages for alumni & faculty and athletics have been made, alleviating the issue. Does anyone think it's a good idea to remove a lot of the athletic information from the main UA article and having it accessed via a link to the Arizona Wildcats Athletics article? Major championships and such would be left on the main UA article, and more specific info accessed on the Athletics page. Several other universities do this. Any input is great! Mxpc05 02:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • We might want to remove some of the sports-specific stuff (such as the championships, etc, which is a good idea, I think), but I don't think it's a good idea to remove the "standard" info that's on the page. We could abbreviate some of what's there, but, if you look on several other uni pages, we're in-line with those. Also, I couldn't care less about th 30kb limit, to be honest, especially since many uni pages go over that without any real ill effects. I think that a lot of the reputations and rankings look gawdy, and also are a bit "unencyclopedic," but I haven't touched them as I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to do so.. maybe there can be some dialog about that here. Moving the "people" list out was probably a good idea, since that takes up a lot of room without adding to the overall narrative of the uni page. So there's kindof the summary of what I feel. The page isn't in dire shape at this point, so don't panic, but there's probably a better way to condense a lot of the information on the page so that the main points are here, and the specifics go over to their respective pages.. But, for sure.. no way Wilbur's comin' off the page! :-) Madmaxmarchhare 04:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree with the above comment, and I do believe the UA article is one of the better university articles out there. So if people don't see it as long-winded at 30kb, then there's no problem. I do agree we could find a better way to communicate the rankings, but UA does have many highly regarded academic programs worthy of acknowledgement. It's definitely a well written article that's headed in the right direction. I think the spirit of change got me a little ahead of myself...Mxpc05 05:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need to be shortened per se. There's nothing magic about 30Kb. There once was, due to limitations of older browsers, which is why this number gets bruited about. Some breezy language, peacock terms, and boosterism should be toned down, not to shorten the article, but to improve it. The article, especially the lead section, should focus more on what is really unique to UA and less on how it stands in comparison to other universities. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What if we considered an idea of having a brief summary of the high-points on the main site, making sub-sites for anything of major interest (Sports, most noted departments, etc), and using a template to connect everything together?--Tuvas 20:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the best idea would probably to request a peer review from Wikipedia, they have lots of great ideas. Tuvas 19:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arizona funding vs. ASU/NAU & Medical School Status

The information previously deleted and deemed "false information" regarding funding figures received by UA in comparison to ASU & NAU, along with the deletion of the fact that UA has the only medical school in the state is indeed all correct and valid information, not false.

Arizona receives triple the research funding received by ASU and NAU combined, according to the University of Arizona itself. Specifically, Janet Bingham, Vice President of University Advancement at the University of Arizona has verified such a fact. Also, NAU and ASU both lack medical schools, making the UA the only medical school in the state (specifically that can award MD distinction). --68.84.203.76 03:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Alumni formatting

As a note, I created the table for alumni to help with overall organization. With as many alums as UofA has, there are sure to be many minor notable graduates/former students.

With respect to course of study, many famous entertainers do not actually graduate from the college they attended, so to relect this, the header is "course of study". If a notable alum graduated, listing the degree (e.g. B.S. in Physics) would make more sense.

--ABQCat 23:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Asiananimal, I'm wondering if there was any particular reason to remove the table and replace it with a list which contains a LOT of information. I think there was some value in retaining the table as it allowed an easy overview of each notable person and their respective information. I've replaced the table. Any reason you thought it was out of place? Any suggestions for improvement? I think removing it actually made the article and section LESS easy to use. --ABQCat 22:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Notable Alumni, I made it into a list to go with the standard with Notable Alumni listings in other university such as, Yale University and University of Southern California. This is the standard for all university pages. We should have this page be the same. Regarding non-graduates they should not be listed under notable alumni, to be an alumni one must graduate from the university. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities for standards and protocalls.

Please, understand that readability and discussion are fundamental here. This is not a dictatorship. If you're making substantial changes to a page and are willing to hide behing "style guidelines" which are NOT absolute, discuss it here first. Feedback leads to interesting, well-researched, well-organized pages. Breaking up the page with a pointless list of dead wiki links is stupid. Making a list less readable is stupid. Forgive me, but making an article less useful and harder to understand is just plain wrong, and it's wrong to do with no discussion and then arbitrarily move it back to your "preferred" page styling. We need to reach a middle ground here. Don't like the table? Fine. Suggest a better formatting. Don't just go arbitrarily changing things that there's some discussion/debate pending on. It's a good path to a reversion war. I'm find with other layouts, but the list of colleges and schools needs to go to the end past the rest of the text as it's completely useless as it is (unlinked, non-described college lists are useless to me for information gathering), and the table of alumni needs to be better organized. If you hate the way it had been worked out, come up with something here. The way it is now is no more acceptable to ME than the way it was is to YOU. --ABQCat 09:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One additional comment: While "alumni" might literally mean "one who has graduated", the Arizona Alumni Association considers people such as Craig T. Nelson to be alumni and honors them as such. So I think the definition (as with most real life definitions) might not be as clear-cut as it would appear on first glance. --ABQCat 10:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Find me three university that does it your way, there are barly any, if you look at all the University of Californa, all the Ivy League Universitys, all the SEC school all the other Pac 10 school had it the way I had it. We have to make this page standard like the rest. We can't have a million styles floatting around. Asian Animal 18:41, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides, but let's just leave this section as it stands for a while. Let the next changes come from someone not involved in this dissagreement. There's plenty of other articles that need TLC. ike9898 20:38, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Why on earth would the burden of proof be on me rather than you? It's not about that. Wikipedia is not about the dictatorial application of guidelines (think about that word for a second). Rather, it's a nicely democratic idea about reaching the best content through an interesting exchange of ideas. Your reversions and then mine were not getting us any closer to that. Further, I have two points. I'm renaming alumni to "students" *if* you stick to your *insistance* that even though the Arizona Alumni Association considers Craig T. Nelson to be an alum (and he contributes a lot under that title, by the way), you are right in insisting he is not an alum as he didn't graduate from the UofA. Second: I see Yale's page. They have a LOT of lists at the end of the page. I think that's where they belong, honestly, unless there's lead-in, description, and wrap-up text of some sort for the listing. A short list like the one on this page can be handled in whatever way makes it 1) look best and 2) most informative. Guidelines are secondary to content. --ABQCat 22:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Threshhold of Notariety

As a general guideline, I think national notariety is the guideline we should follow when determining who is and is not a "notable" alumni. Not designed as an alumni listing of all graduates with jobs, we need to make sure the people we list are nationally known or respected. Syndicated columnists, national television reporters, movie actors, television stars, heads of national organizations, politicians, etc. Before adding to the notable list, check you person against that ideal. I'd be willing to work with fellow contributors to flesh out a better guideline that we can all agree on if there's interest. --ABQCat 03:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Alumni

[edit] Bill Fitzsimmons

I've removed "Bill Fitzsimmons" from the listing. He showed up after a recent interview in the Daily Wildcat. He's a political cartoonist for the Arizona Daily Star (If I remember the article correctly). A Google search (pretty good measure of national prominence, generally) doesn't show any pertinent hits except the wildcat article itself. If he's syndicated or someone can point me to a reason to leave him, I'd have no objections to reinstating his listing. Additionally, if such information exists, a wikipedia article should be forthcoming as well (even as a stub). --ABQCat 03:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did you search on Bill Fitzsimmons (the incorrect name that appeared in the Wildcat article) or David Fitzsimmons? I'm not sure how many papers carry him, but Fitz is syndicated--Slate run his strip. --Andrel 17:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I searched on "Bill Fitzsimmons" as that was the name listed in the Notable Alumni section of the wikipedia article. Knowing that the person who added the name was wrong, and after a search on "David Fitzsimmons" I put him into the notable alumni section. Wish people would do the fact checking before doing things like adding info to articles. --ABQCat 18:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] University organization

As it's mostly an dead-wiki list (not a lot of useful information on that), I moved the section to below the remaining text sections of the article. It's useful and interesting information, but it kind of breaks up the flow of the article the way it is right now (no lead-in text, no descriptions, etc). If anyone has any other ideas about the org. of this page, let me know, I'd be pleased to discuss it. --ABQCat 22:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not opposed to a section on university organization. The list as it stands is quite long, however. The primary part of a university may be how it is broken down, but the primary aim of an article on wikipedia should be to inform. A list of unwikied links seems useless to me. It breaks the flow of the article (some lead-in text would perhaps help this) and the link section is so huge as to be unwieldly. Each link, for example, is something like University of Arizona's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. That's a serious mouthful. IF the link section stays in some form, can we agree that the title of the article would be ridiculous (who would ever make any content for it besides a basic stub?) and definitely too long to be completely displayed on the page? --ABQCat 21:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unique distinction

I find this line baffling: "Arizona and Kentucky share a unique distinction as the only two Division I-A schools to earn more revenue from basketball than football."

First, by definition a "shared" distinction cannot be unique. Second, do you have a source on this? I mean, ignoring the many div I-A schools that have no football program at all, this claim seems unlikely considering how many games are played in basketball vs. football. And what about schools like Duke, U.Conn., and Temple whose basketball teams are much more popular than their football teams? --Polynova 06:18, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I just researched this on this Dept. of Ed. website: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/ and found that U. Conn and Duke (though not Temple) both get more revenue from b-ball than football. I reverted out the quote above. --Polynova 06:27, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arizona's University Motto: ?

I don't know what the university motto is, but I'm pretty sure "Bear Down, Arizona," is an athletics motto, at best.

Nah, it's pretty much the University motto. I think it's even official? The phrase is often extended beyond the athletics arena to academic areas, especially by UofA administrators. You don't hear it as much anymore as you used to, but it's definitely quite common and isn't exclusive to sporting. --ABQCat 05:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll take your word for this right now, but I'll check into it a bit more. As for it being official, that can easily be proven, I would think. Better than speculation, for sure.
Ok.. I can't find any indication that "Bear Down, Arizona" is the university motto, at all. There are other possible candidates, and there may be no official motto, at all. Just because there are some fond memories of "Bear Down, Arizona" being used all over the campus, I'm not sure if that qualifies it as an "official" motto as it basically appears to be on the page. I don't mean to be a stick in the mud, but I think it's important that the page states facts, not opinions or "pretty much"s. If anything, we could stick "(unofficial)" after it.
Well, lacking evidence I'm certainly not going to be a stick in the mud either - without citation, the "official motto" is dead. My point was that it's not simply an athletics motto as far as I know. And I'm a current student - no fond memories yet. That'll have to wait until I get my sheepskin. :-) --ABQCat 16:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, to be honest, I can't really find "Bear Down, Arizona" being used in the context of a "motto" at all. Surely in the context of the song, and the song's title-yes, but as a motto, I can't come up with one anywhere. I'm really not trying to down it, but I just want to make sure that, in fact, it is a motto because it has been used in that context, and, if so, it has been used officially or unofficially. We'll just say, for now, that I'm wrong about it not being a motto and official, and let's work to prove me wrong. In any case, we'll eventually solve the motto issue, sooner or later. (I wonder if there is a PR dept at the UofA that can really clean this up for all of us) Madmaxmarchhare 22:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking of emailing someone at the Arizona Alumni Association (http://www.uagrad.org) to find out about the motto. Feel free if you'd like - I've been a bit busy as of late. --ABQCat 06:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'll be dipped in s*#@. I wrote the university relations about this, and they seem to be 100% sure that it's "Bear Down!" Not quite what was up there before, but close enough... I'll update to reflect. Madmaxmarchhare 16:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I've been doing some research on the motto, and I've contacted MANY individuals affiliated with UA (alumni office, president's office, advancement, etc) and several people have confirmed that Bear Down is the official and only motto. However, others believe the issue of "sursum" raises some interesting points and are investigating the idea. So far, it looks as if "Bear Down" is the official motto of UA, until proved otherwise. I will update with any new information.AZCactus1 20:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

AZCactus. Man, thanks for all of your hard work, and thanks for keeping on this. Just know.. there are several seals I have seen that have words, etc. on them that are not the motto of the school, so there is some historical precident for this. Either way, I hope that you uncover a lot more about Sursum, et. al. in your research. Be sure to keep me up-to-date, will ya? Madmaxmarchhare 19:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for list cleanup?

This article has become a collection of lists (alumni, fraternities, sororities, campus museums) and it's starting to look a little amateurish and messy to me, actually. Which lists would there be support for moving to subpages and which would there be support to remove? Additionally, I think that any list should have (at a minimum) a sentence of prose explaining the given list. How do other people feel about the listi-ness of this article? --ABQCat 04:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think several of the lists can go, especially the college/department list, the list of fraternities/sororities, etc. I think having them there makes the article seem "fuller" than it really is, and stifles the additon of narratives that could help give the page more "meat." Madmaxmarchhare 23:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree - more on history, role in regional economy, mission, research, debates. Sport and alums could go separately. (former faculty member)

[edit] NY Times Article on U of A

Is it possible that "complimentary" is meant where we now read "complementary"? Otherwise the sentence does not seem to make sense.

[edit] Photo quest

I thought this might be a good place to find someone who could help out. I believe that just northeast of Old Main, there is a crested saguaro [1]. There are several pictures of this plant online, but a good-quality free photograph would be a very nice addition to this article, to saguaro, and to fasciation, which I am currently working on. Can anyone help me find one, or possibly even take one? Thank you — Pekinensis 02:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cassini work

What, exactly, does "The UA was recently awarded over $325 million USD to lead NASA's 2007 mission to Mars to explore the Martian arctic. The school's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory's work in the Cassini spacecraft orbit around Saturn is greater than that of any other university globally." mean? That the work was objectively better? or more? more hours? people? money? This isn't very clear.

Well the first statement is self-explanatory. But I see what you mean about the second part. I personally know most of the work was conducted at UA and by UA faculty/researchers. That could definitely be better explained. AZCactus1 01:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I copied and pasted in a hurry -- I only meant to grab that second sentence, about Cassini. JDoorjam 05:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football

Please note, the citation for ESPN viewership of bowl games for my edit is http://www.fanblogs.com/bowl_games/006333.php. I love the UofA (in some ways) but am not so attached to the school that I can't accept certain records having been surpassed. If I've got a bad citation (though I can't find evidence I do), please provide one more authoritative and I'll be happy to change the stat back myself. --ABQCat 07:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Placing Seal in Infobox, not "A"

Howdy, all. I'd like to ask what the opinion would be here of replacing the University "A" with the University seal in the Infobox. It seems to be more standard to place the seal at the top of the box, and identifiers such as the "A," which I believe is athletically-oriented, lower in the box or in a different section alltogether. Madmaxmarchhare 16:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly right in that on most university pages (at least those I checked in the Pac-10), the university's seal is used over the university's logo (even though the 'A' logo is the official logo; The athletics logo is the so-called "saguaro logo"). The problem arises with copyright. The University of Arizona has specifically denied its use except for "formal uses such as diplomas and official documents. It can only be used with permission from the President's Office." [2]. While a case could be made that it's fair use, I personally think its risk of dealing with an upset university doesn't justify the benefits of using the seal here. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 14:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the info. Madmaxmarchhare 00:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
While I understand the school's emphasis on the seal only being used with permission from the President's Office, this is an obvious case where fair use would trump such a requirement. Virtually ALL other universities on Wikipedia use their respective seals without issue, and UA should be no different. Wikipedia is an informational encyclopedia, not commercial use, and the use of the UA seal would in no way denigrate it as a symbol. I'm willing to give using the seal a shot, with clear information on it's use as non-commercial. Here's to a shot...AZCactus1 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
A good idea.. if they complain, we'll just pull it Madmaxmarchhare 05:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

Any thoughts as to getting this article Peer Reviewed? It could help us get the article better organized, maybe even on the front page of Wikipedia. Tuvas 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reputation (deserved or not) as "party school"

There is no rule that says that it is only appropriate for articles on universities to include only information that bears favorably on the university. In fact, excluding such information is non-neutral, and a common but inappropriate form of academic boosterism.

I was, in fact, responding to the removal of someone else's comment that UA was a "top twenty party school," which I thought should have been tagged {{citation needed}} rather than removed. On further investigation I was able to find reasonable sources, so I put it back, properly sourced.

Wikipedia is not an admissions department brochure.

It is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia to record the name of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber terrorist, as a notable Harvard alumnus. It is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia to mention the suicide of MIT undergraduate Elizabeth Shin.

And it is perfectly appropriate to include statement that University of Arizona has a reputation as a party school. The opinion that it is, whether accurate or not, is widely held. That is, it is factual that UA does have that reputation. If that does not seem neutral, then the appropriate response is not to remove well-sourced items, but to add properly cited statements reflecting the diversity of opinion. If there is a widely held body of opinion that UA is not a party school (or is no longer a party school), it would be reasonable to have that as well. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A little more looking turns up these:

  • "Although the University of Arizona has a long-standing reputation as a party school, its academic strengths are many."edunetwork.com
  • A reference in fiction: "He had attended the University of Arizona, which had a reputation as a party school, and often joked about failing Brewskies 101, a story that assured him a place in the Freaks Hall of Fame in our school." Ghosts Of Boyfriends Past by Carly Alexander, 2004, ISBN 0758208774

This one looks to me like fair game for citation in the article for balance:

  • Daily Wildcat online: "Officials said, despite common misconceptions about UA, the University of Arizona is not a party school. Students seem to agree. 'Everyone told me this was a party school, but it's not like they said,' said Kevin Brown, a pre-business freshman. But another student said he agreed with the reputation. 'Every single person I know says it is,' said Stefan Misanko, a pre-business junior. "I hear most freshmen that look for a party find one."

From where I sit... never having set foot on the campus... I'd say it sure looks to me as if UA does have a reputation as a party school. Whether or not that reputation is deserved, I couldn't say. If it's not, by all means add facts to the contrary. Some quick Googling on searches like "university of arizona" "no longer a party school" yielded no hits.

[edit] Reorganization based on Cal's article

I'm a U of A alum and agree that this page needs SERIOUS work. I would propose following the model of UC Berkeley's page; Cal is a fellow Pac-10 member, flagship campus of the highly regarded University of California system, and one of the world's great universities and their page is well organized. For the U of A article that would mean:

  • expanding the history section
  • adding a section on notable campus architecture, including the new buildings added since the 1990's (including the new student union)
  • reorganizing and extending the sections on university organization/admininstration and academics, possibly including a list of U of A presidents
  • reorganizing several topics under a general "student life" section, including the Wildcat athletics sections

Several non-trivial notable sources can be used to flesh out the history section and bring it to a nice level. I shall start this process over the weekend and it will be on going. Hopefully all other interested folks will assist.--Msr69er 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wildcat

I am fixing the "Wildcat" links per WP:DPL. Looking at the mascot picture, i assumed what is meant is a Bobcat, and i therefor edited the link that way. If this was wrong, please see Wildcat for the correct link, and edit the links in this article accordingly. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 13:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merge Sherry Hoskinson into University of Arizona#Academics

Sherry Hoskinson is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. It should be either merged, or if it isn't sufficiently notable for a merge then it should be deleted. Ward3001 00:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight given to isolated crime

There appears to be a neutrality issue with the history section of this article due to the overly detailed coverage of a recent crime that just happened to occur on campus and allegedly involved two roommates in one of the school's dorms. A present this event represents over 40% of the history section, but lacks any information showing that there has been an effect on the school that extends past the parties immediately involved in the crime and associated legal proceedings. Most important, the sources cited in support of the addition also do no show that there has been any significant impact on the school. The inordinate coverage of the event, combined with edit summaries such as this, also raises issues with the section being used as a memorial or advocacy vehicle in violation of Wikipedia policy. As per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "merely being true does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." At this point there is no argument that the reported event meet verifiability requirements, but there is no indication as to why this crime is important enough to the history of the university to justify its inclusion in the article. --Allen3 talk 18:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The event happened, but there is no way that one single incident can represent the history of UofA for an entire decade. So, unless someone beefs up the history section massively, this shouldn't go back in. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:N466.11.jpg

Image:N466.11.jpg 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 insure 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) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] research dollars

UA research dollars are no longer 75% of AZ system according to info on asu.edu and arizona.edu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.182.17 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Interesting Thing About ASU Rivalry

It's a common tradition that UA students try to paint the yellow "A" mountain in Tempe (where ASU is located) UA colors during sports season. I can't find a documented source that talks about this explicitly, but if someone else knows about one might be an interesting addition to the section about their rivalry. I know that UA succeeded in 2007, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcarver1988 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)