Talk:University of Missouri/Archive 2

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

Naming controversy

University of Missouri or University of Missouri–Columbia

The university has now dropped the "-Columbia" from the name. (http://mizzouwire.missouri.edu/stories/2007/name-change/index.php) Any objections before moving the article? Dmp348 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The official name of the university has not changed. The announcement made today does nothing more than allow the University of Missouri–Columbia to call itself the University of Missouri for marketing purposes. An enormous amount of weight has already been given to Mizzou by having University of Missouri redirected to this article. I think actually moving the article is uncalled for, and more importantly, would be incorrect.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The University of Missouri(Columbia campus) will for all purposes use the name "University of Missouri, inculding written commujnication, press releases, public relations, written communications, student and faculty recruitment, fundrasing, alumni relations, websites, self identification, marketing, and athletics. Except for offical correspondence within the University of Missouri system. This page should be moved as the term University of Missouri–Columbia will be functionally extinct. The University of Missouri system will now be called the just that, according to the Collegcted Rules of the University of Missouri system, First reference and subsequent references may be University System, UM System, or University. The rules allow for the system to "on occasion from time to time" refer to the entire university as the "University of Missouri." The logo of the Mizzou now reads the "University of Missouri." I see every reason to move the page, and no reason to hold off. Sorry, Lazytiger, I know we have been on opposite sides of this issue before, and I don't want personaly attack you, I think you make some really great edits, and I appreciate your pragmatism on the issue earlier. This is my source for all the above info: [1]

Grey Wanderer, I don't think you used the proper procedure to move the page, as its history has not been moved. It's not gone; it's just still under University of Missouri–Columbia. Since University of Missouri already existed and had history, you needed admin approval and assistance to properly move the article with its history intact (which includes a period for peer review of the change). Did you just copy and paste? These articles have a little twisted up history, so it's not entirely clear how this should be handled. I'm sure you researched and diligently decided upon your method of action, but I still don't think you went through the proper procedures. Please look into this. Thanks.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the page move was a pain in the-- but its all by the book. Because this page had an edit history, what with the debate about the redirects in the past year, the move tool could not be used outright. In this case according to Help:Moving a page there are two choices, one can either list the page at Wikipedia:Requested moves and have an admin do it, or on can follow the steps on Help:Merging and moving pages and merge the page. You will also notice that there is a template on the old page that forbids the deletion of the page to preserve the edit history, the template only appears if you try to edit the page. I also went through and removed all the double redirects, which was a pain because I've been correcting those for over a year now, so I was basically undoing all of my work.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll take your word for it that it was the best way. Are you going to handle the anon editor that keeps adding Columbia references back in?—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 20:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There's already some opposition from an anon editor. Grey Wanderer, I'm ending up supporting you (as usual). But we need to make sure we jump through the proper hoops so that we have the support of admins when people keep insisting on changing it. For the record, the reason I initially opposed such a change is because I rather liked the uniformity of the campus names. As a Missouri native, I know that University of Missouri means Columbia, Rolla is a top-flight engineering school in its own right, and UMSL and UMKC are sort of considered second-tier, yet they are still reputable doctoral-level research institutions. So the semantic (and whiny) argument about dropping Columbia from the name I felt was unnecessary. However, Rolla has already gone and screwed up the naming system, so what do I care if Mizzou drops Columbia? It's always been de facto, though it's still not entirely clear if it's de jure.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Having lived in Missouri my entire life, I have never met anybody who says they went to the "University of Missouri." They all say either Mizzou or Columbia. And I have seen diplomas from UMC, UMR, and UMSL, and they all say "University of Missouri" with no -city. With the rule change on name publication I agree that thread name should not have -Columbia, to comply with wiki commonality rules. However, the article should have -Columbia because that is the official name used by the university system and people should know that.
Thanks for talking on this page, hopefully we can come to an agreement. I encourage your to what I've written below as there is ambiguity on if there is an official name or not. Also, your personal experience is not a useable source on Wikipedia. Please see the evidence I have provided below to the contrary. Thanks.Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My point is if you search "MC Hammer" you get a page titled "MC Hammer" because that is how he is known. But to start of the article it clearly points out his real name is Stanley Kirk Burrell. With the curators vote it is no longer a debate that the Mizzou page should be U of MO and not U of MO-C. However, the wiki article is here to share fact and knowledge. The article should start off by sharing the official name of the university until which time that name is changed. I have yet to see an valid arguement for why mention of the official name should be left out of the introduction.
I've included University of Missouri–Columbia in the opening, and I think it belongs there, however "Columbia" is not a name I have found in any of my research to be associated with the University, If you can find a reliable source for that, I'd be glad to include it. Once again there is plenty of ambiguity about what the "official" name of the university is, see below.
I don't know where the ambiguity is on the official name. See link below for press release from Mizzou itself stating "For purposes of official correspondence, first reference to the UM campus in Columbia shall be to the University of Missouri-Columbia." That seems cut and dry to me on what is official. http://www.missouri.edu/news/name-restoration.php

On official correspondence the name "University of Missouri–Columbia must be used. On official letters from the chancellors, official T-shirts, official transcripts, official MU banners, official commencement speeches, when telling CNN about a new gene discovered, When discussing MU on the floor of the Missouri senate the name University of Missouri will be used, which ones official? Don't forget to sign your post with four tildes.Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Things to Consider regarding naming

I liked the uniformity as well, but to be a university in Missouri it seems you have to change your name at least once a decade. I want to put out four points and see where Lazytiger stands on them, anybody else who wants to thrown in their opinion please do. My assertions are in bold and my evidence/support follows. Thanks.Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

...you have to change your name at least once a decade.
Ha. So true, it seems.

Number One

The University of Missouri System currently has nothing to say on Mizzou's official name. Mizzou must use "University of Missouri–Columbia" on official correspondence but that is it. Mizzou is allowed (and be sure they will) to use "University of Missouri" for all other purposes of identification including, but not limited to: athletics, public relations, press releases, fundraising, alumni relations, marketing (online, mailings, TV, posters), written communications, student recruitment. I think that the uses listed above just about cover everything a university uses the name for anyway.

I bet Mizzou will bend the rule about including "–Columbia" in first use on "official" correspondence (whatever that includes) to the point of being a joke. For all practical purposes, "–Columbia" will probably never be used by Mizzou again. "–Columbia" will probably be used in internal documentation relating to the system. I think the UM System has effectively ceded the generic title "University of Missouri" to Mizzou, but their wording still left them a bit of legal wiggle room just in case.

Number Two

Wikipedia titles are not limited to official names. Wikipedia:Naming conventions states that "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize." The official name of the U.S. is the United States of America however the Wikipedia article is at United States, even though their are several countries around the world who could claim that shortened title.

I've read the rules about titles before; I know you use short, familiar titles and then expand upon it, if necessary, at the beginning of the article (e.g., "Acme Cosmetics" is the title of the article, but the first sentence expands the full name of the company to "Acme Cosmetics, Inc."). With that in mind, it seems there's no doubt that the title of the article should be "University of Missouri". Whether the first line of the article should include "–Columbia" is entirely opinion. My opinion is that it shouldn't if Mizzou virtually never uses that form. Whereas a case could be made for a company that does commonly use "Inc." in the fine print, Mizzou seems to want to rid itself of "–Columbia" like the plague.

Number Three

University of Missouri is the name most commenly associated with Mizzou in the press, conversation, and now MU publications This is a list of how people navigated to the Mizzou website:

  • 1. University of Missouri 212,718
  • 2. Mizzou 129,031
  • 3. University of Missouri Columbia 66,377
  • 4. Mizzou.edu 44,155
  • 5. people finder 42,887
  • 6. Missouri.edu 34,549
  • 7. parking 33,118
  • 8. www.missouri.edu 31,622
  • 9. Missouri University 26,586
  • 10. University of Missouri-Columbia 24,651
I don't give a whole lot of weight to these figures; I think it would be a lot more meaningful and interesting to include the number of people that searched for "University of Missouri" and didn't go on to Mizzou's site. I'm sure it's a much smaller number, but then you at least have something by which to gauge Mizzou's pull on the term.

Number Four

The name "University of Missouri" will rarely be used to identify the University of Missouri system except "on occasion." The collected rules state: "This name (University of Missouri System) shall refer to the unified, state-wide, multi-campus University of Missouri System and the administration for the System. First reference shall be the University of Missouri System. Second and subsequent references may be UM System, University System, or University. In addition, the UM System officials may have occasion from time to time to refer to the entire university as the University of Missouri.""

This is just more clarification of terms and making sure they've left the legal back door open; they've essentially ceded control of the term "University of Missouri" to Mizzou.

Some clarification on "official correspondence"

Found here: http://www.themaneater.com/article.php?id=28386

MU will still have the regional designation as a part of the official campus name in what the amended regulation refers to as “official correspondence.”

UM system spokesman Scott Charton said examples of this would include forms to the state or legal letters involving MU.

Found here: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/11/29/columbia-distinction-dropped-universitys-name/

MU will still have to include the “Columbia” in any official documents, including budget documents and legal letters.

Found here: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/92F2C47DEC4FD713862573A30018B629?OpenDocument

The school still would have to use its hyphenated Columbia name for "official" correspondence. MU Chancellor Brady Deaton said that includes contracts, legal documents and other times when clarity is needed. He said the school would use its judgment in deciding which name to employ.

This effectively means that the general public will no longer see the name "University of Missouri–Columbia" being actively promoted. As far as the school using its judgement, I can guarantee they'll never use "Columbia" in any public-facing situation.

More info of interest (from the first link):

Tony Luetkemeyer, student representative to the Board of Curators, said the provision does not change all that much.

“The change to the collected rules just recognizes what is already a reality,” Luetkemeyer said.

Board of Curators Chairman Don Walsworth also said the name restoration for MU will provide some consistency in how it is referred to by the public.

“It confirms what people already know through athletics and other things,” Walsworth said.

During the meeting, Walsworth said he looked at the letterhead of 10 different schools at MU. Of those, only one included the regional designation.

I do believe that part of providing some consistency would be to not use "University of Missouri–Columbia" at the beginning of this article. However, that's not to say that the change isn't controversial, on Wikipedia and at large, and shouldn't be treated somewhere in the article... just not in the first sentence/paragraph/section. That should be reserved for an introduction with timeless, vital information about the subject, not squabbles about the name or any other ephemeral issues.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 05:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued prevalance of "Columbia"

I was just poking around Mizzou's website to see how often "University of Missouri–Columbia" continues to be used. While it has been removed from the top-level design of the site, its use is still quite prevalent on various college and department websites. This isn't surprising at all; it will of course take a bit of time before the vestiges of "–Columbia" disappear. I also read here that they do not intend to change any signage around campus (example: [2]). So while there is plenty of fodder with which to argue, I still believe that "–Columbia" should not appear in the introduction of the article. We should try to establish the consistency intended by the Chairman of the Board of Curators. The name change controversy could be respectfully treated in its own section where the amount of detail needed could be given.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that dropping "–Columbia" is not compulsory; just because the top-level administration is eager to drop it doesn't mean that there won't continue to be schools, departments, and/or individuals using it out of disagreement, ignorance, or indifference. And you can be sure that UMKC and UMSL will refer to MU with Columbia included. I'm kind of contradicting my argument, but I just want to come to the best decision on what to do here.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 02:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's my .02 on the recent a/k/a "Columbia" debate. I appreciate Grey Wanderers restraint on 3R. Coming from a small upstate town, it was also referred to as "Columbia." While I personally found it confusing considering my roots in the J-School where Columbia University is god and also because there's also a Columbia College, I always knew what folks were talking about when they said Columbia. Of course, I also know what they were talking about when they talk about "Lawrence" and "Lincoln." Americasroof 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Everyone seems to have different experiences with how they and people they know refer to Mizzou. One person above said he never ever heard anybody refer to it as "University of Missouri", but I do so all the time—especially because I now live out of state and that's what people recognize. You say people in your circle call it "Columbia"; I have also heard people call it that, though less commonly. To me it's just too ambiguous, as you also noted. I've really only referred to it in two ways, to two definitive groups of people: if they're from Missouri, I say I went to Mizzou. If they're from anywhere else, I say I went to the University of Missouri. I've never had anybody be confused about where I went to school.
I think this whole thing is pretty childish. There are many university systems that have definitive flagship campuses, yet have regional designations in their names. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. University of Colorado at Boulder. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Indiana University Bloomington. University of Wisconsin–Madison. All are also commonly and unmistakably known by their generic "University of _____". They somehow aren't afraid of people thinking they're regional institutions. This is why I'm having a hard time fully supporting this semantic pettiness from Mizzou.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 05:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are plenty of university systems around the country that have regional designations and yes they are afraid of losing their "definitive" flagship status to a regional name. Chancellor Emeritus of the University of California - Berkeley, Robert M. Berdahl, gave a well written convocation to Texas A&M in 1998. He affirms the importance of protecting the stance of flagship universities when saying:
"No state can afford to build many flagship universities. They cannot be built quickly. They cannot be built by faculty who do not meet the highest standards of scholarly research. They cannot easily be built from institutions that have historically not been involved in much research or graduate education. Once built, they can be easily destroyed by political intrusion or financial neglect.
But flagship universities are vital to our future. If states such as Texas do not work to protect and promote the excellence that UT Austin and A&M here in College Station have achieved and will build upon, the best and the brightest students will either have to leave the state or settle for a less challenging education offering fewer opportunities for them in the future. Unless the state recognizes and supports excellence, excellence will not develop and we will all be the poorer for it."[1]
The University of Missouri hss succeeded in asserting its status as the Flagship University in the State of Missouri by restoring its name to what it was when it was founded in 1839 (the University of Missouri System was established in 1963). The name has been restored and should be reflected in the title of the article. The name was University of Missouri from 1839-1963 and will be from 2007-present. If necessary, the name "University of Missouri - Columbia" can be included in the history of the University of Missouri, as the name was used for 44 years during the 169 year history of the University of Missouri. Only a blip in the radar screen. Thanks. --C6Au79 (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My proposal on the name change

After doing some research (outlined above) and mulling it over, my proposal is this:

  1. The article should remain in the University of Missouri namespace.
  2. The first sentence of the article should read: "The University of Missouri–Columbia (also officially known as the University of Missouri, Mizzou, or MU) is a..."
  3. The first sentence should remain that way until such a time when it can be demonstrated that usage of "University of Missouri–Columbia" has become relatively obscure. E.g., few (if any) schools, colleges, departments, and/or individuals use the term on their websites, stationary, etc.; signs around campus are changed; nor is it used anywhere else reference or mention of the university regularly occurs (journals, newspapers, etc.). OR, such a time when the Board of Curators actually changes the official name of the university.
  4. There will be no mention of the controversy over the name in the introductory section. It will be handled appropriately elsewhere in the article. The introduction is for steadfast, vital information, not ephemeral issues or news.
  5. If "University of Missouri–Columbia" is still the official name of the university at the point in time when it is deemed obscure by a consensus of Wikipedia editors, the name will still have to be mentioned and discussed somewhere, but needn't be in the article introduction.
  • Only time will tell how effectively Mizzou's administration can eradicate the use of "University of Missouri–Columbia". It is important to note that dropping "–Columbia" is not compulsory.
  • I hope at least five people will vote yes or no on my proposal here within the next few days. Please vote below, and leave any comments if desired. Thanks!—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 21:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Support That compromise sounds reasonable to me. Dmp348 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Support Sounds great, thanks for your work LazyTiger.Grey Wanderer | Talk 03:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This is outrageous. The University of Missouri is the name of 4 schools in the school system. The University of Missouri (Saint Louis) chapter is still a University of Missouri as is Kansas City and Rolla chapters. Just because Columbia is the largest chapter doesn't give it rights to this namespace. Redirect to University of Missouri System and place this article where it belongs under University of Missouri-Columbia. The administration of Mizzou is one POV and the other 3 colleges in the system are other POVs to be represented. This is Wikipedia and WP naming conventions decide what occurs here. Alatari (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • comment The official system web page still lists all four schools all named University of Missouri. This POV has to be represented when naming the page and in the usage of University of Missouri thru the article which may also refer to UMSL or UMKC or UMR. The frequency of University of Missouri web usage from the other three systems were not counted or discussed in common usage criteria. Not enough editors were polled before the name space change was made and the change was not made by an administrator thus losing the history from the University of Missouri-Columbia page. Alatari (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment The collected rules and regulations of the University of Missouri System make clear that name "University of Missouri" is never to be used to refer to any campus but the Columbia one. In popular lexicon I can't imagine a case where "University of Missouri" would be used to refer to UMSL or UMKC. The move did not have to be made by an administrator as long as proper proceeder was followed, because this page had an edit history, the move tool could not be used outright, in this case the "merge" function is used, this is discussed above, please take the time to read the debate above, sorry for all the commas.Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment The rules and regulations of the Curators don't decide common usage and are only one POV to be considered. Anyone attending the non-Columbia campuses are referring to their own campus when they say I attend the University of Missouri. The combined number of hits of various usages:
  • Of all searches "University of Missouri" straight is the least used term. Whereas "University of Missouri" Columbia has 3m hits the other 3 uses have 4.6m hits total implying that "University of Missouri" is used in a very wide spread manner. Alatari (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing is considered original research and what you have provided is not considered a Reliable source. I'm not sure what the statistics above mean or how to interpret them. By the time I got to the 20th Google page the results were rarely about what was search for, this is far to inaccurate and confusing to base anything on.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Never seen hit counts or Alexa usage called original research. Neither have you offered up common usage statistics from any source. And you did the same thing here which makes this hipocritical. Alatari (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and "University of Missouri" straight gets over 4 million hits making it the most used term, yes?Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
No it gets 180k hits. Alatari (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Google does not included the word "of" in its search. So to add to the inaccuracy your also getting all the results for "University in Missouri" and things like that.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

When I clicked on the above links, I documented the following number of hits
"University of Missouri" Kansas City (1,370,000)
"University of Missouri" KC (1,420,000)
"University of Missouri" Rolla (363,000)
"University of Missouri" St. Louis (313,000)
"University of Missouri" Saint Louis (873,000)
"University of Missouri" Columbia (2,910,000)
"University of Missouri" (3,250,000)
This would mean "University of Missouri garnered the largest number of results in a google search. However, if anyone understands how a Google search works, this data would mean nothing. Google searches a page (the entire page) for the words provided separately (unless in quotations). Columbia was not included in the quotations, so a page that said "University of Missouri" and had contact us at Columbia, MO 65211 at the bottom of the page would return a result. A better experiment would be to search "University of Missouri - Columbia" and "University of Missouri - St. Louis" etc. These results are as follows:
"University of Missouri - Columbia" (689,000)[2]
"University of Missouri - Kansas City" (358,000)[3]
"University of Missouri - Rolla" (213,000)[4]
"University of Missouri - St. Louis" (73,400)[5]
When examining this data, we must consider many variables. The University of Missouri (located in Columbia) is the largest University in the System and therefore would have the most websites (or google search results). The University of Missouri - Rolla is officially changing its name to Missouri University of Science & Technology on January 1st, 2008 and has already started transitioning the information on its websites. I hope we can all see from this data that we are not experts on statistical analysis and should refrain from using our own research as it can be bent by bias. I do not support the data I have obtained and am using it as an example.
Will the students attending Missouri University of Science & Technology continue to unofficially go by the name "University of Missouri - Rolla?" Only time will tell, but this is no reason to not change the University of Missouri - Rolla's page name to Missouri University of Science & Technology. This is because the University of Missouri System has given University of Missouri - Rolla the right to use the name Missouri University of Science & Technology. The same view should be applied to Mizzou. This talk page has continuously documented the University of Missouri System's approval of the name University of Missouri for the Mizzou. Thanks. --C6Au79 (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


  • comment I guest we just have an old-fashioned disagreement here. The whole reason that the curators enacted the name change was that "University of Missouri–Columbia" de facto called "University of Missouri," and now the term "University of Missouri–Columbia" is essentially vanished from the public eye. On news programs for instance the University of Missouri System is called exactly that, and now the system is even requiring that the media call it that, but letting the media call Mizzou simply the University of Missouri. The counts above are not original research those numbers are from the MU website and only say how people navigated to the MU website thats a far cry from your numbers. I think I'm going to wait for comments from the other involved parties before I get anymore involved.Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment At risk of further fanning the flames, I'll address the use of Google hits to determine common usage. Since the "University of Missouri" namespace is at issue here, it seems to me that it boils down to this question: When "University of Missouri" is used without a city affixed to the end, what is it referring to?
While a search for ("University of Missouri" Kansas City) does yield 1.4m hits, most of the pages contain the phrase "University of Missouri-Kansas City" rather than "University of Missouri" standing alone, which is what we're looking for.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your overall premise, Alatari (the administrators' campaign to drop the "-Columbia" seemed petty to me). It's just that those Google searches don't indicate what "University of Missouri" standing alone refers to. Perhaps the place to start would be a search that filters out the names with cities attached, such as "University of Missouri" -"University of Missouri-Columbia" -"University of Missouri-Kansas City" -"University of Missouri-Rolla" -"University of Missouri-St. Louis"
All that said, I think common usage is a rather fluid and subjective concept, and trying to determine it is like trying to nail down Jello. I hope we can all civilly reach a compromise here. Dmp348 (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, this looks like a fun discussion.  ;)
I just wanted to add a few thoughts here. Personal disclosure: I am a student at the University of Missouri (the one in Columbia ;)) and have a lot of personal ties to Columbia and to the University (again, the one in Columbia).
I agree with Grey Wanderer that it is not clear how to interpret the Google results cited by Alatari, since they appear to be internally inconsistent. My reasoning is as follows: my assumption is that the count of pages containing the terms "University of Missouri" and "Columbia" should necessarily be less than or equal to the count of pages containing the term "University of Missouri", since the former is a subset of the latter. The same holds for Kansas City, St. Louis, and Rolla. Yet Google returns far fewer pages for "University of Missouri" alone. So something is simply "off" with the results, suggesting that Google hit counts are not giving us the kind of information we wish to know -- and even if they were, it doesn't seem that they would support or contradict Alatari's conclusions.
I would also point out that the earlier statistics Grey posted here were not Google hit counts, but rather data derived from UM-Columbia's web referrer logs for www.missouri.edu, taken from http://www.missouri.edu/news/name-restoration . Of course, the original log data used to generate these results is not available to us, so it is not possible to verify them independently -- I am only pointing out that it is not hypocritical of Grey to be dismissive of the Google results.
Alatari makes the following comment:

Anyone attending the non-Columbia campuses are referring to their own campus when they say I attend the University of Missouri.

This statement is technically true, but must be interpreted carefully lest we wind up assuming the very point we are trying to prove. When a UM-{Kansas City,St. Louis,Rolla} student makes the statement "I attend the University of Missouri", one of the following must be true:
1. the student is referring to the University in general and not to any specific campus,
2. the student is referring to his or her own campus, or
3. the student is lying.
We can probably agree that extremely few UMKC, UMSL, or UMR students who say "I attend the University of Missouri" believe that they are lying, and therefore almost any such student must be referring to the system generally, or to his or her own campus. But this point is vacuous; the relevant question here is not whether a student who says "I attend the University of Missouri" is referring to the system generally and/or to his or her own campus, but rather how often students at campuses other than Columbia actually say this.
My own experience would suggest that students at UMKC, UMSL, and UMR rarely refer to themselves as "students at the University of Missouri" without qualification. However, my own experience could be heavily skewed by the fact that I myself grew up in Columbia and have been a student at MU for more than seven years; most people talking to me know this, and therefore might be more likely to use the regional designator for the purpose of disambiguation. I cannot offer objective data here, and I don't believe anyone else has either.
I went to Rolla and we called it the University of Missouri. I've attended classes at UMSL and it was referred to as the University of Missouri by many people and faculty without adding the 'St. Louis' qualifier. It's too much extra verbage. Our Diplomas clearly spell out University of Missouri without qualification. The hundreds of thousands of diplomas handed out need to be used as an indicator. Alatari (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I am in no position to dispute what you say about common usage at UMR/UMSL -- but common usage at UMR/UMSL (or, for that matter, at Columbia) are not the same thing as common usage generally. And if common usage is the criterion, then the phrasing used on a ceremonial document like a diploma is not relevant. Adam (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We would have to ask the source desk whether diplomas are a valid source in this regards. Alatari (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Another comment by Alatari:

Mizzou is the common term for [the] University of Missouri-Columbia.

Mizzou is certainly a common term for the University of Missouri-Columbia. Similarly, "Ole Miss" is a common term for the University of Mississippi -- but so is "the University of Mississippi." That "Mizzou" is commonly used to name the Columbia campus of the University of Missouri does not imply that other names are not used as well; "common" usage certainly may make a distinction between formal names and informal nicknames. (I make no particular claim about what the common formal name for MU actually is.)
I would offer a couple of additional, and contradictory, data points:
1. "www.missouri.edu" directs users to UM-Columbia's website, while the system's website is found at "www.umsystem.edu". missouri.edu was first registered in 1987, umr.edu in 1988, umkc.edu and umsl.edu in 1989, and umsystem.edu in 1990, suggesting that the four UM campuses have had separate Internet identities (with UM-Columbia claiming the general "Missouri" moniker) since... well, long before much of anyone was paying attention.  ;) A similar situation exists with respect to athletics (Mike Kelly doesn't say "TOUCHDOWN MISSOURI-COLUMBIA!!"), though I believe this is the result of a specific exemption for athletics that had been granted to UM-Columbia when the four-campus system was established (and is now redundant in light of the "name restoration").
When Rolla football players scored a touched down they screamed the "Miners' scored and at Columbia they scream the "Tigers" scored!... You are making the non neutral point of view of this article very clear. Columbia is not the only University of Missouri school with sports programs. Alatari (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand -- would you deny that (a) UM-Columbia is often referred to in athletic contexts as "Missouri", and (b) the other UM campuses are not? Adam (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
2. In my experience (yes, that means I don't have hard data to back up this assertion), most papers, posters, etc. authored by affiliates of UM-Columbia identify the institution as "University of Missouri-Columbia". With the curators' recent decision, this is likely to change very rapidly, but it hasn't quite happened yet.
Taking all of the above into consideration, we still have to decide what the proper guiding principle is here. I can think of a few possibilities, with varying consequences (and I'm sure others will see even more possibilities):
1. "We should use the campus' official, legal name." Then the article should be named University of Missouri-Columbia.
2. "We should use whatever name is promoted by the University system." Then the article should be named University of Missouri (as evidenced by the curators' recent decision).
3. "We should use whatever name is promoted by the campus." Then the article should be named University of Missouri (as evidenced by much recent crowing on the part of UM-Columbia's administrators and marketing people).
4. "We should use whatever name is most commonly used." This raises the question of what constitutes "common usage."
This is what Wikipedia policy
4a. If we are referring to casual, everyday speech, then the article should probably be named "Mizzou".
4b. If we are referring to written usage -- academic papers, news stories, etc. -- then the article should probably be named "University of Missouri-Columbia", but this may change as the "University of Missouri" moniker becomes more widespread.
(Side note: it seems to happen rather often that campuses other than Columbia are referred to in the media simply as the "University of Missouri". Two particular examples I can recall off the top of my head: I have seen Kris Kobach, a right-wing/anti-immigration professor of law at UMKC, referred to on The O'Reilly Factor as a professor at the "University of Missouri", and one morning several months ago my heart leapt into my throat as I awoke to CNN's coverage of a shooting at the "University of Missouri" -- but slowly came to the realization that I didn't recognize the building pictured on screen; the incident had taken place at UMR. I make no comment on whether or not this kind of usage is "correct" -- I'm just pointing it out.)
That is blatant support that all schools in the system are commonly referred to as the University of Missouri. Alatari (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is one data point that lends some measure of support to that conclusion. Adam (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
My own preference, lest I be accused of picking on Alatari, is actually for option 4b. But if anyone asks me to explain why, I'm likely to just shrug my shoulders. I don't think that Wikipedia policy answers this question unambiguously, but Wikipedia policy is not something I'm deeply immersed in, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can make a persuasive argument otherwise.
The question is unambiguously dealt with at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)#Disambiguation. Since other schools can be ambiguously referred to as University of Missouri the city name is to be added after the main title.
The very same Wikipedia page states that:

School article titles should use the full official name of the school as provided by the school itself, unless the most common name for the school is significantly more well known than the official name. (emph. added)

So the policy hardly seems unambiguous. Whether "University of Missouri" is significantly more well known than the official name is one of the things we are interested in establishing. Adam (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Also see the official statement by the Board of Curators: The University of Missouri, which refers to the institution, in all of its parts, persons, property and relationships wherever situated, owned, operated, controlled, managed or otherwise regulated, is under the supervision or direction of The Board of Curators of the University of Missouri. Alatari (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
How does this obscure page from the UM system website, which has not been reviewed in almost six months, trump the recent statement from the very same Board of Curators? If this page matters at all (it doesn't), doesn't the Board's decision on the name change carry even greater weight? Adam (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It shows the trend of name usage even by the Curator's themselves over the last 40 years. They can't erase 40 years of usage within one short month. That page is indicative of the usage trend that will have to be overcome. Alatari (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it is more likely that that page is indicative of the Board's former desire to protect the "University of Missouri" name against the trend of common usage towards "University of Missouri == Mizzou". Adam (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we can all agree, at the very least, that the UM Board of Curators should have its collective gubernatorially-appointed butt kicked for doing so little over the past forty years to help answer what should be an extremely simple question.  ;) Adam (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Alatari, you really can't make a good argument about POV when the Board of Curators has officially given its blessing to Mizzou to use "University of Missouri" essentially whenever they want. They even effectively took away the UM System's use of it. You make the argument that UMKC or UMSL could theoretically call themselves "University of Missouri", but the fact of the matter is they never do. Even more importantly, prior to the decision that was just made, no one was ever assigned official usage of the generic "University of Missouri" title. Not even the system. See here for the official rules and regulations on the name. Now Mizzou has been given permission to use it. No one else has. The whole point of the Board of Curators' decision was to allow for official consistency of what has forever been common usage. University of Missouri means Columbia. I agree with Adam about this all being the Board of Curators' fault for leaving (even adding?) this stupid ambiguity in the naming rules.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Again it doesn't matter what that decision states unless it effect common usage. Wikipedia policy is what matters Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)#Disambiguation and common usage in the media and at all campuses must be attributed or this article becomes only the Board of Curators POV biased. Which is why the NPOV tag has been added. Alatari (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If NPOV (with respect to the POVs of the various campuses) is the basis of your argument, can't one simply turn that argument around and claim that the title must reflect the POV of the Columbia campus, the Board of Curators, MU alumni, etc? Adam (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It must represent all POV's read WP:NPOV Theirs is one POV and is already represented. The other POV's aren't being represented for the UMSL and UMKC campuses and the names on the thousands of diplomas passed out. Alatari (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
But if the POV dispute concerns only the title of the article, does that mean we need to cram all POVs into the article title itself? University of Missouri, a.k.a. Unviersity of Missouri-Columbia? Adam (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

More Naming Controversy

Whew, its amazing how much space this debate has taken. Yesterday I listed this conflict on request for a third opinion and at Mediation Cabal. I also listed it at formal mediation, but that request was denied (my fault for not reading all the instrutions). I want to apologize here for moving this page without first checking to see if anyone had a problem with it. I really didn't realize it was going to be such a controversial topic at the time. Also the University of Missouri might be partially to blame as the first press release on their website stated that the curators had actually changed their name fully, they've since retracted that statment and replaced it with the one referenced many times above. That press release caused me to believe I had every reason to make a major edit such as moving the page. That said I still believe that even though the curators action was what spurred me to make the change originally the change was coming in the long run anyways. I'd like to sum up where I'm coming from incase I've skipped over expressing some of the big reasons behind my edits, and I'd like to get feedback if anyone agrees/disagrees with any of my major points.

The University of Missouri was founded in 1839 in Columbia and from 1839 until 1963, the term "University of Missouri" was only applied to the Columbia campus. In 1963 University became a four campus system and University rules regarding the use of the term "University of Missouri" required that the term only be used to refer to the entire system. In reality, the term was still widely used to describe the Columbia campus alone especially in terms of athletics and national media. When the University of Missouri System structure was enacted it created four campuses of equal standing, from what had been the "University of Missouri" "University of Kansas City" "Rolla school of mines and mellargy (which had been a branch or the Columbia campus." The St. Louis campus was created new rather than absorbed from a previous institution. The new system renamed the schools "University of Missouri–Columbia" "University of Missouri–Rolla" "University of Missouri–Kansas City" and "University of Missouri–St. Louis". The recent name change of "University of Missouri–Rolla to "Missouri University of Science and Technology" revived a long dorment campaign to offically drop the Columbia designation from the University of Missouri's name. The issue has been highly politicized by factions of faculty and students and UMSL and UMKC, because of fear that thoses campuses would be viewed as branch campuses instead of schools in their own right. The curators voted unanimously to allow what the president of the board of curators called the "de facto" use of the term by MU. I find Alatari's arguments particuarrly vexing as the term "University of Missouri" is never used to refer to either UMSL or UMKC.

Again a patently untrue statement. When I received my University of Missour Curators' scholarship it was for any school with the name University of Missouri. The student at St. Louis campus call their school University of Missouri commonly and so did most of the students and faculty at Rolla refer to the school as University of Missouri. The diplomas state this and the news media has called all the the four schools University of Missouri in news releases. The O'Reilly comment above is just proof in point. Any student or faculty at the non-Columbia schools are going to commonly shorten the name to just University of Missouri or the school nicknames of UMSL, MIZZOU, or UMR when referring to their own school. I talked to a Librarian at the UMSL campus and she refers to her campus as the University of Missouri. However finding documented evidence of usage is a hard for it's not an important social study. So again we should stick to the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)#Disambiguation Alatari (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But the term is commonly used to refer to Mizzou. The term is also occasionally used to refer to the University of Missouri System as a whole. The curators voted to curtail the use of the term to refer to the system, and voted to allow Mizzou to use the term offically, though not on legal documents or offical correspondence. This means that the common english name of the University is now "University of Missouri." I believe the common english name has been that all along, the stats provided by MU's own website above, show that that is the most popular way to refer to Mizzou. Obviously those stats cannot be used to judge MU's pull on the term vs other schools, but I think that the action of the curators speaks for itself.Grey Wanderer | Talk 03:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The the stats provided by MU's own website above is only a single minor POV not encompassing the entirety of the world's usage of the term. Alatari (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm your mediator. Please see the case page for further discussion. Auroranorth (!) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Who are you? You have no user or discussion page content and why did you choose to arbitrate this case? Alatari (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


Mediation Cabal case regarding naming of University of Missouri

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

User:Grey Wanderer, User:Alatari, and User:Lazytiger

What's going on?

Dispute about where to locate the information at University of Missouri. At the University of Missouri namespace or at the University of Missouri–Columbia namespace.

What would you like to change about that?

Currently arguments have only become more frantic and agitated. Need an uninvolved party to lay down some guidelines and help interpret wikipolicy.

Mediator notes

Hi. I'm your mediator. I've come to mediate your case. I'll be looking at the case and will tell you when I'm done. Auroranorth (!) 13:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes

Discussion

I believe we should stick with the Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)#Disambiguation since determining common usage will need some outside original research. Alatari (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We both agree about sticking to WP policy, I believe the policy dictates that the page should remain located where it is. Several users have provided sources that demonstrate that the term "University of Missouri" refers only to the Columbia campus. You have provided no sources except for stating that "I talked to a librarian" of "students say." You've also stated that the Bord of Curators of the University have a POV, of course they do, but theirs has significantly more weight than yours. I've tried to take your comments in stride, but I have to agree with Lazytiger, and say that most of your arguments don't make a great deal of sense. I hope this mediation will be productive and solve our problems, but if not, I'm willing to attempt formal mediation.Grey Wanderer | Talk 07:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I've cited sources which you have ignored including the Curators official usages. Other editors have clearly cited uses that attribute the term to other campuses and you continue to push the view that it 'never' gets used for the other campuses. It only takes one user referring to the UMSL campus as the University of Missouri to refute that statement. The curators do not run Wikipedia and anyone officially representing them is in violation of WP:COI and can not edit the page. Alatari (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Alatari, I wonder if you could summarize your argument for us, since the discussion on the article talk page has been all over the map. Are you claiming simply that the POV of campuses other than Columbia must be represented? Is your argument based solely on the (proposed) Wikipedia policy you cite (which to me seems ambiguous at best)? Do you claim that common usage doesn't matter? Something else? Adam (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd also point out that the guidelines you cite appear to have been written with geographically distinct, completely unrelated, identically-named schools in mind, e.g. Forest School (Winnersh), Forest School (Horsham), and Forest School (Walthamstow). They do not appear to have been targeted at multi-campus university systems, whose individual campuses fall under the same administrative umbrella and have distinct names from each other. Adam (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC
Since the actual diplomas state University of Missouri no matter what campus it is issued from, since even the Curators call the other schools University of Missouri on their own website, since the official name of the school is still University of Missouri-Columbia, since news media refers to other campuses as the University of Missouri, since students and faculty at non-Columbia campuses refer to their schools as University of Missouri while speaking of them, since the UMSL, UMR and UMKC campuses are still University of Missouri schools, the University of Missouri article should continue to be a disambiguation page as it was. If UMSL and UMKC are ejected from the University of Missouri system then this would all be a mute point. Alatari (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was at an UMSL graduation yesterday, the diplomas state University of Missouri St. Louis, quite clearly and the dipomas have the University of Missouri system seal on them. I'm a little frusturated, no matter how many times I tell you that I don't work for the University you keep accusing me of COI. I have no more COI than yourself. The Curators website has not been changed yet to match the new guidelines. The Curator never call UMSL, Rolla, or UMKC just "University of Missouri" there is always a qualifier. The curator often call MU just that. For a very long time it was the curators who insisted calling the University of Missouri the "University of Missouri-Columbia," due to common usage and a de facto attitude about the name the curators finally bowed to the pressure and officaly recognized the usage. Even the president of the board of curators said that they were just recognizing reality. Altari you keep claiming their are other editors that support you, Who?. And by the way the University of Missouri page was never a disambiguation page, it was a redirect to University of Missouri-Columbia. I second Adam and would like a summary of your argumetn as I'm a little unsure what your arguing.Grey Wanderer | Talk 08:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You were at a graduation? Why? If you have a diploma then scan it in and prove your point. I will get the librarian at UMSL to scan in some diplomas if she is willing. The University of Missouri article redirected to the University of Missouri System page by other editors. Alatari (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, My brother-in-law was getting his PhD in Criminology. To be exact the casing said University of Missouri St Louis, the diploma stated that it was awarded by the University of Missouri curators, thoses were the only two uses of University of Missouri at all. The University of Missouri page hasn't redirect to the system page in over a year. This was changed because of common usage per WP:Naming Conventions.
Here is a scan of a UMKC diploma[3]. All of the diplomas for all system schools are the same, with of course the name, date, and city changed. These diplomas have been in this form since MUs founding. Diplomas are granted from the system, not the campus, therefore the only reference to the campus is the name of the campus on the front of the binder they are awarded in. This, of course, has no effect on common usage or conversation.Grey Wanderer | Talk 09:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
So in common usage when someone refers to the University of Missouri where they graduated they are talking about the System not the school in Columbia. You are making my case very well. Alatari (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ummm....thats not what I said.Grey Wanderer | Talk 09:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I hate to pick nits here, but the diploma pictured dates to 1940, more than twenty years before UKC joined the system as UMKC, and was apparently given "in substitution for the degree...conferred by the University of Kansas City". I wonder if this was some sort of special joint degree between the former UKC and MU? Do UMKC diplomas still bear this notation? Adam (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so it is, that is how the diploma's still look, I saw one yesterday.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
My diploma from Mizzou also looks similar, except of course it says "Done at the University, in the City of Columbia," and doesn't say anything about substituting a degree from the University of Kansas City. I don't think the diploma says it was issued in 1940; it's substituting the original University of Kansas City degree that was given in 1940. The date of issue of the scanned diploma is not clear. Interesting, but nonetheless irrelevant to our discussion here.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's irrelevant; my nitpicking has more to do with idle curiosity than with any belief that it makes a difference to the debate. Adam (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a very simple concept in my mind relating to usage but I'll step you through it. I like hundreds of thousands of other graduates received a diploma which states Univerity of Missouri on it. My resume states I graduated from the University of Missouri and when I'm asked about where I attended school I say the University of Misouri just like thousands of other graduates do with their resume's and interview processes. But I went to the Rolla campus and so did so many others attend the non-Columbia campuses yet they received diplomas stating University of Missouri. Comprende? Usage in everyday life. Alatari (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You're conflating two different things here. What you and other graduates of campuses other than Columbia say on their resumes, in interviews, etc. should certainly inform our definition of common usage; what the diploma says should not (IMO). Adam (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You claim on Talk:University of Missouri that other campuses POVs must be represented. You've yet to prove that other campuses have those POVs, all I see is the POV, your trying to push. I think I might understand something better now. Are you upset, like some UMSL and UMKC faculty, because you think that the those campuses might lose prestige if they are viewed as branch campuses. Many faculty at UMSL and UMKC had opposition to the curators action because they did not want to be mistaken so, however, no one at those campuses every tried to deny that "University of Missouri" alone meant either the system or the Columbia campus.Grey Wanderer | Talk 09:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not my POV it's also a POV I see clearly represented on the Curators own web site and in the news media: Here's Bill O'Rielly referring to a University of MIssouri law school professor at UMKC not UMC. Alatari (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked you several questions above, can you address them?Grey Wanderer | Talk 09:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have answered your questions. You make a very good point about the POV of the faculty still viewing the StL and KC branches as University of Missouri. You seem to be supporting my argument those faculty views are representative in this dispute. The University of Texas way of handling the name space is very appropriate and the way this article was handled until you heavy-handedly moved the page without reaching consensus. Alatari (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Another point: University of Missouri doesn't disambig Lincoln University of Missouri properly. Which is another small University of Missouri est. 1866. Alatari (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really think you don't have any idea of what common usage is, I don't know how to respond to this...Do you live in Missouri, and do you know much about our educational institutions? The main question I wanted answered is: Which, if any, editors are supporting you?Grey Wanderer | Talk 09:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
LU is definitely not part of the UM system, and would never be referred to as the University of Missouri. In fact, I think many LU people would bristle at the suggestion.  ;) Adam (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what Alatari's issue is with the Lincoln University link; it's irrelevant to our discussion here. In the context of the MU article, the fact that we're talking about the Lincoln University located in the state of Missouri is a given, so I used plain "Lincoln University" in the text and piped the link to Lincoln University of Missouri, which was the article's namespace at that point in time. It apparently has since been changed to Lincoln University (Missouri), but I sill fail to see why this is at all relevant here.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Right -- LU is totally unrelated to the UM system, would never be referred to as "University of Missouri", and is therefore irrelevant. Not all Universities in Missouri are Universities of Missouri  ;) Adam (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Not that it matters at this point, but I was confused and also forgetful. I moved Lincoln University (Missouri) to Lincoln University of Missouri (on 18 April 2007) when I saw how prominently the university displayed its name as such. But it seems I did not update the link in the MU article. So I'm stupid for forgetting I did that. But second, I'm now understanding that Alatari might have been confused, thinking that "Lincoln University of Missouri" is related to the UM System. It isn't, as Adam already pointed out. "of Missouri" is simply a disambiguation tag, much like Indiana University of Pennsylvania, or Washington University in St. Louis. Glad I could clear up this point that no one cares about. :) —Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 18:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. On their website they have "LINCOLN" in one typeface and "University of Missouri" in another typeface on a separate line. This state just doesn't try very hard to keep its universities straight, it seems.  ;) Adam (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm getting tired of this discussion. I don't feel nearly as strong about either viewpoint as you two do, Grey Wanderer and Alatari. And thus far, we have really gotten nowhere. Speaking of nowhere, where is our supposed mediator? Should we request a new one? Anyway, back my point. We really are on different wavelengths here; that's just how written communication works compared to verbal. If we were in a room speaking together, we might actually understand each other's points, even if we still didn't agree. I've flip-flopped on this issue all along (dating back over a year), and I'll happily flip again. I'm not a big supporter of Mizzou's semantic whining about Columbia being in its name. Common usage is often different than official, and it's not a problem. UMKC, UMR, and UMSL might, in common usage, be referred to as "University of Missouri" and no one ever had a fundamental problem with that. But when push came to shove, as MU instigated, the other campuses and the System effectively said, "Fine. Take it, you whiny bitches." So now MU has quasi-official claim to it, where none existed before (since 1963, at least). Of course this has all been a rather recent development (less than 3 weeks, people!), and common usage doesn't change quickly, if ever. Now, I recognize that all four campuses, collectively and individually, can (and sometimes are) correctly referred to as the "University of Missouri". However, I think it is also a true statement that the utterance of "University of Missouri" from any and all sources—local, national, or international; sports or academics; TV, newspapers, or journals; students, faculty, alumni, or public at large; in the classroom or on the street—is most often referring to MU. That does not mean that other uses are incorrect, nor should it cause such an uproar about usage. But it does suggest what people are probably looking for when they come to Wikipedia and type in "University of Missouri", and as far as this argument goes, that's all that matters. Grey Wanderer has done quite a bit of work looking at the hundreds of Wikipedia articles that have a link to University of Missouri and he found that virtually all of them were referring to Mizzou. That's really all the proof of common usage that we need for this argument. Wikipedia is not the place to hash out grievances about usage at large; it should simply be a reflection of common usage—not even at large, but specifically within the sphere of Wikipedia. Certainly, facts about usage are welcome within the articles themselves, but talk behind the scenes like this is not. So... after all that, here is my latest and greatest suggestion as a compromise: Move the MU article back to University of Missouri–Columbia, and make University of Missouri a redirect to the MU article. There will continue to be a Wiki note at the top stating that University of Missouri redirects here, and offers a link to the system article. This gives MU enormous weight to the namespace "University of Missouri" but doesn't exactly give it ownership. Much like reality, in my opinion.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that this is the best compromise, and well-reasoned, and I would echo your frustration. ;) Adam (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It is how the article was named originally. Usage on Wikipedia is not evidence for common usage in the public. Wikipedia reflects usage outside itself and that argument borders on WP:WAX. Alatari (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • you both know my opinion, but, if that is the only consensus that we can come to, I'll agree. However, this topic my be revisited should, campus signage change, or a good third party study get done (whats the likelyhood of that?). I would also stipulate that in accordence with MUs own naming conventions that within WP the name University of Missouri may be used, though should link to University of Missouri-Columbia.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Makes sense to me -- redirect University of Missouri to University of Missouri-Columbia with a DAB header-thingy, and if at some point in the (perhaps distant) future this starts to look silly due to shifting usage/opinions, then future editors can change it. I think this is the best way to both reflect common usage and maintain NPOV. Adam (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I just thought of another compromise: Say we create a University of Missouri disambiguation page, but leave the MU article where it currenly is. It would be much like the relationship between Missouri and Missouri (disambiguation). That way we would be recognizing that all the campuses are associated with that name, but be able to leave MU at the name it is most commonly called University of Missouri (well ahead of University of Missouri-Columbia (see MU website stats). This would also keep down the number of redirects since University of Missouri is the most wikilinked.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You mean University of Missouri would redirect to University of Missouri-Columbia, which above the main article content would contain a link to University of Missouri (disambiguation), which would explain the naming issue and give links to the system and campus pages? Adam (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nahh, I wasn't being that generous. Mizzou stays at University of Missouri, but we create University of Missouri (disambiguation) page. This is the sceme in place on Missouri. When people say "Missouri" the usually mean the state so thats where the article is located, but, they sometimes mean the river, or band, so there is a disambig page.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Of course, if usage changes, official or otherwise, then the situation should be reexamined. The three of us are more or less in agreement about the redirect, but Alatari has not yet chimed in, nor have we heard anything from a mediator. (Grey Wanderer, might you see about getting another 3rd party Wikipedian? Although I don't think it's necessary unless Alatari still wants to argue.) I am not a big fan of "Whatever (disambiguation)" pages. I don't think that would solve anything; we're all fighting for the good real estate. :) I agree that "University of Missouri" may be used at will in the body of the MU article or in other articles referring to MU. That's been common long before this argument ever broke out, and we couldn't change that if we wanted to. I don't think it matters much if the link is piped to "University of Missouri–Columbia" if the redirect is there, and certainly the unwashed masses won't have the diligence to use "–Columbia" in the text, let alone a piped link. Really, that is central to our argument here (and is in our favor), as far as what name/link other Wikipedians are likely to use in other articles.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 19:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So UM-Columbia content stays at University of Missouri, and University of Missouri links to University of Missouri (disambiguation)? The only thing I don't understand is what links to the disambig page. Adam (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another idea: perhaps we could simply change the dablink at the top of the existing University of Missouri page to read as follows:

This article is about the university in Columbia. "University of Missouri" may also refer to the four-campus University of Missouri System, which includes the University of Missouri–St. Louis, the University of Missouri–Kansas City, Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla, and the flagship University of Missouri campus in Columbia.

(Substituting "University of Missouri-Rolla" where appropriate until 1/1/08.) It's lengthy, but its very length would call attention to (and clarify) the potential ambiguity right away, and it implies no POV on the "correct" usage of the term. Adam (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The most recent Dablink statement I would support but I wish to see the namespace handled like the University of Texas is handled with University of Missouri redirecting to University of Missouri-Columbia or Mizzou and the above Dablink with maybe a small section in History regarding the name change and it's controversial nature. And a University of Missouri (disambiguation) page with a quick list of all schools with the University of Missouri in their name.
No argument against the redirect from me. I'm not sure that the lengthy dablink and the disambig page are both necessary, but it hardly seems like a big deal -- it's just that, similar to Grey Wanderer's proposal, I'm not sure I understand what would link to the disambig page when the dablink seems to say it all. Others' thoughts? Adam (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll start the University of Missouri (disambiguation) page after some r/l matters. Alatari (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to start a University of Missouri (disambiguation) page, I of course can't stop you, but I don't see what that page would do that couldn't be readily handled by the University of Missouri System page. But I'm at least glad we're coming to some sort of agreement. Thanks.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Alatari's right that there was opposition to the name change. UMSL and UMKC professor were opposed because they didn't want it to appear that those campuses were branch campsues as opposed to insitution in their own right. I have seen no evidence that UMSL and UMKC ever claimed that "University of Missouri" alone ever applied to anything but Mizzou or the system. The problem is that we need to go with public usage not any schools POV. Nobody from any school has disagreed that "University of Missouri" usually means Columbia, just if Columbia should be allowed to change its name offically. Are we in agreement then that the University of Missouri namespace should either: (1) rediret to University of Missouri-Columbia (2) be the location of the Mizzou page or (3) be the location of the Mizzou page with a link to a University of Missouri disambig page at the top. I am personally in support of number three, I think it makes it clear that though "University of Missouri" most comonly applies to MU, it might also be applied to the system.Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

I hope I'm not being overoptimistic here, but I think that we may be getting close to a consensus and I want to try and make a concrete proposal to try and close the deal.

  1. Redirect University of Missouri to University of Missouri–Columbia.
  2. Add the following dablink to University of Missouri–Columbia:
    University of Missouri redirects here. "University of Missouri" may also refer to the four-campus University of Missouri System, which includes the University of Missouri–St. Louis, the University of Missouri–Kansas City, Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla, and the flagship University of Missouri campus in Columbia which is the subject of this article.
  3. Address the name change, and the opposition to it, in two or three short sentences at the bottom of the "History" section in University of Missouri–Columbia.

This differs from (my understanding of) Alatari's most recent proposal in two ways: (1) there is no disambiguation page, and (2) the dablink has been reworded slightly (from my original wording, which I believe Alatari has said he would support), to reflect the fact that University of Missouri would be a redirect rather than contain University of Missouri–Columbia content.

I have omitted the dab page proposed by Alatari from the above not because I am categorically opposed to it, but simply because I don't understand what would link to it (it seems that it would be orphaned), and I agree with Lazytiger that the University of Missouri System page can serve essentially the same function.

I believe the merits of this proposal are as follows:

  • The wording of the dablink statement does not imply that using "University of Missouri" to refer to the system is "incorrect" or "mistaken".
  • The length of the dablink statement, placed at the very top of the article, calls immediate attention to the ambiguity.
  • It (hopefully!) balances the various points of view.

If I'm understanding everyone correctly -- and I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth! -- Lazytiger would probably not object to this, while Grey Wanderer would rather keep UM-Columbia content at University of Missouri, and both Grey and Alatari would like to have a dab page (rather than a simple dablink). If that's all we have left to disagree about, maybe we can compromise, or at least try to stay focused on those two points as we continue debating the issue.

Thoughts? Adam (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....I don't like the unwieldiness of the dablink wording, but might have to accept it. I also think Lazytiger's right that the system page accomplishes just about the same thing as a dab would. I'm a little unwilling to call attention ot the ambiguity on the top of the MU page, just because it clutters things up, and I don't think most people care, (except for geeks like us). I think there are two seperate arguments here: (1) Where to located the Mizzou material and (2) How to provide for the fact that University of Missouri can mean multiple things. To address issue (1) WP:Naming Conventions would have us place the Mizzou article at University of Missouri as that is the most well known and used name for that institution. To address issue (2) it would seem the clearest way to demonstrate ambiguity would be the creation of a disambig page. I only think a disambig page might serve us better than linking to the system page because it would be located at a University of Missouri not University of Missouri System. So it would be clearly about the term "University of Missouri."Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the wording of the DABlink is a little much; I think we can refine it into something that gives the same information in a more compact form. While I see Grey's point about the disambig being in the plain namespace rather than under System, I don't see that as a big enough issue to warrant the separate disambig page. I think University of Missouri redirecting to University of Missouri–Columbia recognizes that's the most common meaning, but doesn't take sole ownership. Then, the DABlink at the top can (briefly, I hope) explain the multiple acceptable and/or common meanings of the term. It could be as simple as the University of Texas article, which Alatari seems to think is a good example:
"University of Missouri" redirects here. For other system schools, see University of Missouri System.
I think all Alatari really wants is for the MU article to be moved back to the University of Missouri–Columbia namespace; I don't think we're going to run into any big problems with the redirect or the wording of the DABlink. I can see Grey's point that common usage could dictate that the MU article be in the University of Missouri namespace, but that's not a given and we're obviously trying to reach a compromise here.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning behind the lengthy dablink -- which I agree is almost laughably verbose -- is that it falls in between a full dab page (requiring an extra click for the [presumably large] majority of readers who were actually looking for UM-Columbia), and a very short dablink which might fail to catch the reader's attention. ("Other system schools" seems a bit terse.)
I do think that some people other than "us geeks" (referring to Grey Wanderer's comment) may care about the ambiguity, whether they initially realize it or not. As an example, someone who doesn't already know about the structure of and naming conventions of the UM System might see a reference to an "University of Missouri-St. Louis" faculty member in the media, search Wikipedia for more information, and land on University of Missouri. I think that a lengthier (and more explanatory) dablink would cause such a reader to pause for a second and make sure he's in the right place, while the UT-Austin style one is more likely to go unnoticed, meaning that such a reader would be led astray (at least temporarily). On the other hand, a reader who knows where she's going will probably take one glance at the dablink, skip right over it, and move on to the body of the article.
Maybe something in between, explanatory and contextualizing but not quite as unwieldy, would work better:
This article is about the flagship University of Missouri campus in Columbia. "University of Missouri" may also refer to the University of Missouri System, with campuses in Columbia, Rolla, Kansas City, and St. Louis.
But at any rate, if everyone else is satisfied with a UT-style dablink I'm certainly not gonna object at this point! Adam (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If we have to make an even shorter sentence here a dab page would be needed but this particular dablink is very nice. List of colleges and universities in Missouri covers any dab page much better than any I was going to create. The Category:Universities and colleges in Missouri is pretty clear too. Alatari (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I give my full support to the UT-style dablink (I even think that was what was on the page before). I think at some point down the road that the page move will become absolutely necessary. MU is going to do all it can to erase University of Missouri-Columbia from public and formal usage. Should that become necessary, I would make sure to notify everyone who has participated in discussion here and propose the move for administrative review. However I don't see any reason to bring it up again unless campus signage is changed and if it becomes relatively obscure on the website. If Altari agrees, I will perform a reverse merger of my original edit today. I might also archive this conversation with the rest of the name debate on what will be Talk:University of Missouri–Columbia/Archive2.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's funny (not "ha, ha" funny, but...) that we will end up in exactly the same place we started if we go back to the MU article being at University of Missouri–Columbia with University of Missouri redirecting to it, and the DAB reading ""University of Missouri" redirects here. For other system schools, see University of Missouri System." As far as the MU article inevitably moving to the University of Missouri namespace again, I'm not sure how inevitable that actually is. I know the upper echelons of MU's administration would like it to happen ASAP, but that doesn't mean it ever will. Only time will tell. I find it interesting that the UM System has not had any news releases on their website since the name "restoration" was announced. The length of time that has passed is longer than usual between their news releases, and that obviously was a notable piece of news. I'm wondering if some sort of website redesign is brewing, in light of the imminent Missouri S&T changeover and MU taking marketing possession of "University of Missouri".—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 02:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • AGREED: I'll wait for the changes before proposing any language on the history section for the name change. If they had changed the official name to University of Missouri completely forsaking the -Columbia in all ways legal and contractual and then this wouldn't have been such an issue. Is this a first step in making KC and StL official branches? You all have convinced me that my original thoughts that University of Missouri article should contain the University of Missouri System text were off track. Alatari (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think UMKC or UMSL are in any danger of becoming branch campuses as they are separately-accredited institutions. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they want to change their names in the future, even if they remain in the system. UMKC could go back to being the University of Kanasas City; UMSL could be University of St. Louis, though I don't think SLU would be too happy about that. Regardless, as long as "–Columbia" is holding on by a thread I don't think that is likely or necessary.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Speak of the devil—as soon as I say that the UM System hasn't had a news release, they have one. The new UM System president will be announced tomorrow, and it's going to be just-ousted Sprint CEO Gary Forsee. Interesting. No comment on that, but I have been wondering about some other aspects of this name restoration that the UM System has left oh-so-vague. E.g., you often see "© Curators of the University of Missouri". Should that now read "© Curators of the University of Missouri System"? How about the research parks? Health care system? Extension programs? It seems there will continue to be a very tangled web of where the System ends and MU begins, or vice versa. On a more Wiki-centric note, should templates referring to MU include "–Columbia"? How about articles like AAU or Big 12 Conference? We've got many more cans of worms to wrangle.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 02:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've noticed that in all the news articles today about Forsee, they have diligently referred to him being named president of the UM System, not just the University of Missouri. Equally diligently, they note that he received his degree in 1972 from the University of Missouri-Rolla (they of course used a hyphen instead of an en dash... can't have it all.  :) I don't know if they naturally made these distinctions or if the UM System was heavy-handed. Seems unlikely that the UM System said much of anything, considering they aren't officially announcing the presidency until tomorrow. Everyone was seemingly copying their facts from the AP anyway, so I guess it only takes one source to be diligently correct and everyone to follow. I also just checked through a bunch of MU schools/colleges/department websites to see if "–Columbia" is disappearing. I haven't been keeping track, but my general impression is that maybe a few schools/colleges have changed since I last checked, but several still use the old name and there is a lot of inertia on the low-rent department websites. Then again, it has only been 3 weeks. Time will tell.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 04:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be interesting to understand better the timing of the Rolla name change and Columbia change from the back-room politics view. Rolla has threatened to pull out of the system befores; there were rumors of it in the 1980's while I was an undergrad. Alatari (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I just added a bunch of text about the name controversy on the University of Missouri System page. Check it out and let me know what you think. I'm not done with it yet, but I'm out of time until after Christmas. Thanks.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 04:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It will need some heavy sourcing. some articles or transcripts of the decision making meetings would be helpful. The wording needs to be a bit more neutral uninvolved viewpoint although in it's current form it's an interesting read. So the Rolla decision was first? See you in a few days. Alatari (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it definitely will need a lot of sources, though they might be difficult to find. I figured it was best to try to just flesh something out first and then track down the attributions afterward. Rolla was indeed first as far as actual decisions, but I'm sure unrealized name changes have been proposed in the past. That's more content that can be added if anyone is knowledgeable.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed the move, should be done in anytime now.Grey Wanderer | Talk

Move has been completed, I think thats it.Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)