Jump to content

Talk:Michigan State University/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Alumni, notable

Lovelac7, it seems a number of famous MSU alumni have been both eliminated or not included. Also I note we have the only alumni section that has every alumni footnoted. While I agree for clarity and exactness, which is what got both our main and history articles Feature status, I think this may going a bit far. I suggest we add the follow alumni who, if you check, are famous:

Edgar Anderson (botanist), Charles E. (or CE) St. John (astrophysicist), James W. (or JW) Toumey (botanist), E.J. Kraus (botanist).

These are all starred Scientist from 1943 and before (see link: http://books.google.com/books?id=4OvFHmwgghQC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=%22franz+br%C3%BCnnow%22&source=web&ots=jiJjRju_Xg&sig=lraze2Wm4CoF2rh_DyhKMEjuyZ0#PPA248,M1 . There are others who I’ll suggest, later, but for now, I’d definitely include these.

Can we get a vote in favor? 69.249.211.107 18:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ranking

I note the MSU website's "Points of Pride" section lists the following:

"A ranking of Top 100 Global Universities released by Newsweek/MSNBC in August 2006 lists Michigan State at No. 62..."

I think this should be added, in addition to the other rankings. I'm just not great with footnote attributions, if someone might give it a shot. 151.197.39.235 22:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Izzone

I adjusted a statement that the Izzone is one of the "most elite" to the most intimidating, mainly because I remember seeing an article stating just that. I cannot seem to find it, so if anyone knows what article I'm talking about please cite that statement in the Men's Basketball section for me. - EndingPop 18:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, EndingPop, but that's exactly the kind of assertion that needs a footnote. Even if you found a reference, you'd have to say, "So-and-so ranks the Izzone as the 'most-elite' student section", or something like that. Lovelac7 07:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

MSU Userboxes

This user is a Spartan.
   I have updated the MSU Userbox with a public domain Block 'S' logo. To add it to your userpage, just add {{User Michigan State}} to your userpage. Enjoy.
— Lovelac7 23:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This user is a Michigan State Spartans fan.
Not really. All images used in templates must be "free," as per WP:FUC, and the Spartan helmet thing is a copyrighted logo and thus not free. --Dynaflow 06:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of debate (part two) related to Pennsylvania State University and University of Pennsylvania, any objections to adding a top link to University of Michigan? And likewise to Michigan State University? Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 13:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Without objection, done. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lyman Briggs School

May I suggest adding that to the list of residential colleges? It's the only one of the (now) three that is missing, and arguably at least as important as James Madison. --TauNeutrino 20:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Land Grant Inconsistency

In the land grant college pages Wikipedians have said that Rutgers was the first Land Grant and that Michigan State was the Pioneer Land Grant and that Iowa was the first established after the Land Grant.

So, cleaning up the inconsistency is probably a good idea so it doesn't cause confusion.

Harrassment about using Image:MSU Bronze Sparty 2.jpg

Some Norwegian is harassing the use of Image:MSU Bronze Sparty 2.jpg in the Michigan State University article. He claims that a picture of a statue is a derivitive work, and therefore not licensable by the photographer. Fine. So I can't license it under the creative commons licenses, and I changed the licensing to Template:Statue... Unfortunately, he still takes issue with it. According to my Norwegian friend who apparantly is a defender of statues in his spare time, still is not up to fair-use standards. If anyone wants to help put him in his place, I would appreciate it.

I really don't understand people who troll around looking for things like this. It's rediculous. The image would still remain on wikipedia used in other articles even if it was removed from the Michigan State University article. And what kind of Michigan State article would it be without a picture of its' Mascot in it? GEeez. Some peoples kids. --Jeff 14:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand his rationale. You took the photo, you're illustrating the article and adding information to the article. Just because the photo happens to be of a piece of art does not mean the photo of it is a copyright violation. It's absolutely idiotic that he's going out of his way to pick a fight like this. - Stick Fig 19:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I added a referenced description of the statue's artistic genre, and mentioned the original sculptor in the MSU article. Now the Fair use rationale is satisfied. Lovelac7 18:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

National Titles in Hockey, Football and Basketball

Michigan State University is not the only NCAA division One Program with national championships in football, basketball and ice hockey. The University of Michigan also has had national championships in Ice Hockey(1998), football (1997) and basketball (1989)

Ruckus

Hey, just noticed that the reference to the Ruckus service, which is a service MSU uses to encourage students to stop stealing music, was removed for being advertising. I'm not really comfortable with removing it. I think we'd be better served by mentioning the service, why MSU made the deal, its strengths and weaknesses, and its popularity with students. There was a specific reason MSU agreed to the deal, and it's because of another campus-related issue. Let's find a way to address that issue rather than ignoring it. - Stick Fig 22:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I took that line out beacuse, after reading up on this service, they work with many different universities. Their website proclaims, "Our list of partnered schools is growing daily and has become too large for us to show all of them."[1] I also read that Ruckus is big on viral marketing, so I looked up the articles taht linked to the Ruckus or Ruckus Network pages. As far as I could tell, MSU and American University were the only one linked. So after some thinking, I decided that the sentence was as extraneous as a clause saying that "MSU students receive free access to Facebook." Anyway, if you have a good reason to put the sentence back in, please let me know. My question is this: Is there anything notable about the MSU/Ruckus partnership? If there is, let's stick it back in. That's what they make page histories for. Lovelac7 09:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Should this be added?

I found Corner blitz via the random article feature, and thought it might need to be included in this article as a link or a merge. -- VGF11 02:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Town and Gown" insertion

Every few months someone tries to insert these same lines into the main article, often in inappropriate places. I think either a new artcle should be created around these events and somehow linked to the article, or should be omitted altogether due to the increasing size of the article. AStudent 00:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In recent years, "town and gown" relations have soured as students and permanent residents looked at each other with increasing hostility. Tensions worsened when East Lansing erupted in riots in 1997,[1] and 1998.[2][3] The most recent disturbance occurred on April 2 2005, after MSU's defeat to North Carolina in the 2005 men's basketball Final Four.[4] Officially deemed a "civil disturbance" rather than a riot, the incident sparked a debate over police brutality in East Lansing, which has yet to be resolved. Despite the damage to MSU's image, the University looks to improve its academic reputation in the 21st century

  • I wrote this paragraph to minimize academic boosterism. (i.e. show some of the bad things about MSU.) Featured article criteria require a balanced view of the university, and unfortunately for us Spartans, the riots are part of our history. The segment you've quoted belongs in the "History" section, under the subheading "Global leader by 2012". If editors are duplicating it elsewhere in the article, feel free to delete it. Lovelac7 08:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to create a new article. However, it doesn't make sense in it's current heading, "Global Leader by 2012". Perhaps under "Student Life"? Also, someone has already reverted it back to include Lovelac's additions. - EndingPop 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with the discussion to make it a new article. If it's imporant enough of an event to be part of Michigan State history it deserves it's own article or stub. The MSU article is long enough already without including it - especially in random places, which can be considered vandalism. Just toss a link at the end of a sentence and stop making it such a big deal.162.82.215.199 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the new resolution at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, the Michigan State University featured topic will be eligible for removal after 1 January 2008 if Michigan State Spartans is not improved to GA or FA level. You might also want to review point #5 of the featured topic criteria (no obvious gap) because the topic will also come under increased scrutiny at this time. Thanks.--Pharos 03:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

All of the copyrighted images in this article need fair use rationale. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Copyrighted images needn't be fair-use. For instance, I retain all copyright on photos I've placed on Wikipedia and Wikicommons (including those photos here on this article), but I've licensed them under CC-SA-2.5, which is a completely wiki-friendly license. I have a strong distaste for the anti-copyright tirade that's gone on here on Wikipedia and every time I return to have a gander it only gets worse.--Jeff 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Eustace-Cole Hall image

Another Wikipedian is challenging an image on this article. I'm seeking others' opinions to determine which image should be used in this article. Please offer your feedback.

Image:MSU Eustace-Cole Hall.jpg - Large resolution image

or

Image:MSU Eustace-Cole Hall2.jpg - Low resolution image taken from a closer vantage point.

Thanks.--Jeff 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)



Good to see you took the liberty of changing that without a comment. The second one is not only a closer vantage point, it has a better resolution. The larger the image does not mean higher resolution. The only photo that looks good on this entire page is the autumn leaves walkway image. The other photos were obviously taken by an inexperienced photographer and a poor lens. I have some photos that I am going to replace on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subterranean (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ranking

MSU's study abroad program is the largest of any single-campus university in the United States with 2,461 students studying abroad in 2004–2005 in over 60 countries on all continents, including Antarctica.

Is that quote truly a "ranking" shouldn't that phrase go under student life or the top paragraph of the academics section Oldag07 Oldag07 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose to merge Associated Students of Michigan State University, which is the MSU student government, into the Student Life section of this article. Once the unsourced facts and original research are removed, there will not be enough to sustain an article. Therefore, I propose that the remaining information is merged into this article.--RedShiftPA (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. As a former vice-chairperson in ASMSU, I was proud to write this article. Four years later, the article has gone nowhere. I've looked around for independet (non-MSU) sources for the ASMSU article, and so far I've found nothing. Though it saddens me personally, ASMSU is just not notable enough for Wikipedia. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support a merger into the main MSU article. I also think we ought to delete/merge/redirect most other student government articles, as well. Lovelac7 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Complete I incorporated as much as I thought I could from the original article into the ASMSU section here. I brought the logo, links, and refs. I think this works much better than separate articles.--RedShiftPA (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: the old version of ASMSU article had a lot of good WP:OR that may be useful to members of the ASMSU community for historical purposes, even though it is not appropriate for wikipedia. You can find it here: [2]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup suggestions

From an outsiders standpoint this article is becoming very long, I suggest the following changes:

1) Remove the three sections on football, basketball, and hockey and replace them with links to separate pages under the "athletics" heading.

2) Remove the list of "famous alumni" and replace it with a link to a list.

3) Remove the 19/20/21st century famous people and merge it with #3

4) Remove the years MSU won titles from the introduction, most people want basic information (name, location, program, brief history) in the introduction not a sports resume.

5) Update the endowment link, seems to be a few years old.

24.233.142.246 (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction Issues

The following statement: [ It is considered to be one of America's Public Ivy universities, which recognizes top public research universities in the United States.] has no business in an encyclopedia article. First of all, "it is considered" doesn't mean anything. Second of all, Michigan State is not on par with schools like Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, UCLA, Berkeley, Washington...sorry MSU, you're just not that. I realize some guy wrote a book where he included half the public schools in the country on this list, but it doesn't belong here. MSU is a great school, but the introduction sounds like it was written by the university's PR department and it cherry picks from all available "rankings" of MSU. I nominate that sentence for removal and the paragraph for a bit of "neutralization."Tjm402 (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree and VOTE AGAINST Tjm402’s proposal and that the statement that MSU is recognized as a Public Ivy should REMAIN. Your claim the statement is non-neutral and, somehow, booster-ism is totally specious given the fact that the statement is fully attributed and footnoted. Fact is, whether you with the Greene Brother’s several-years-old Green Guide, it is a mass-market book and widely recognized by academics and the public alike as singling out the top flagship state universities of America – MSU happens to be among them. Just because you don’t like the Greenes’ conclusion, doesn’t mean we should kneel to your wishes and take it out. Fact is, a number of colleges use the “Public Ivy” reference, and some don’t even bother to attribute it as the Michigan State article did. Your comment that MSU “isn’t that” in reference to schools, you believe, are a league above MSU reveals (to me, at least) you have an anti-MSU agenda and not some desire for objectivity in the article.69.249.236.166 (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To whomever writes above from IP 69.249.236.166: First of all, I have no "anti-MSU" agenda. I have been researching graduate schools, and the introduction that I discuss above struck me as I described it - sounding like it was written by MSU public relations folks or something - and not as objective and encyclopedic. I expressed my voice, as is done here often, and don't expect anyone to "kneel to my wishes." I just find it kinda ridiculous that half the public schools in America with any kind of notoriety are now labeled "public ivies." While my "anti-MSU" agenda exists only in your head, it is clear that you have a pro-MSU agenda and are either a student or alumni. When these articles are written by students and alumni of the school in question, they often lack objectivity and aren't helpful to people trying to do comparative research. All I'm saying is that the introduction sounds subjective and not befitting a reference text, and I reiterate my assertion that [ it is considered to be one of America's Public Ivy Universities ] is a meaningless statement. If you want to say "The Greene Brothers guide regards MSU as one of America's Public Ivies," then you might have an argument as to the validity of the statement's inclusion but it won't change my claim that the tone in parts of the article is fundamentally biased and clearly written by affiliates. You can cite and attribute all you want, but if you cherry-pick your references that doesn't make something objective and neutral. And if you want to think that MSU carries the same weight in academic circles as Virginia or Michigan or Wisconsin or Berkeley - well you are entitled to do so but those rankings you seem to esteem so highly when you're cherry picking them in your favor would disagree with you there. But that is beside the point. Tjm402 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Hannah statue.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)i love the sports i also love zach randolph

Mugabe Stripped of MSU degree: Citation

I assume that a local television report confirms it, but here (http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/28302079.html) confirms that on September 12, 2008 Mugabe was stripped of his honorary degree for human rights abuses. Mizunori (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, I have added a ref. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

question

Which spartan appears in this photo:

File:Fb illinois02.jpg

reply on my talk page please - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 22:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Judging from [3] and [4], I'd say it's Javon Ringer. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Organization and administration section

I note that this article doesn't appear to have any section dedicated to describing the organization and administration of the university. Per WP:UNIGUIDE, might we devote some space for the structure of the administration, current leadership, budget, relationship with a board of trustees, formal affiliations or relationships with other universities in Michigan, student and faculty government, endowment information, academic divisions of the college/university, membership in major consortium or other inter-university organizations, etc.? Some of this information appears to be haphazardly spread through sections like history, academics, and colleges. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

MSU's Endowment

The NACUBO list Michigan State Universty(#52) and Michigan State University Foundation(#169) in their rankings I'm not making this number up out of thin air. More over even in MSU's own budget documents they combine the two go to page 108 Endowment Assets at Market Value http://dev.opb.msu.edu/msuinfo/documents/dataDigest.pdf St8fan (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that NACUBO doesn't add the two values together so I'm very leery of Wikipedia editors doing so. Endowments are much more complicated than many people realize and that's why we generally rely on the experts at NACUBO to do the hard work, heavy lifting, and original research. ElKevbo (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but MSU's Office of Planning and Budgets does and if anyone is informed about the schools endowment they are, if MSU sees them as one I'm inclined to use the MSU's own numbers.St8fan (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with six cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Michigan state museum

Any editors of this article near MSU? I am looking for a photo of a fossil in the MSU museum. Contact via user talk and I will coordinate. Thanks! Go Spartans!TCO (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Alumni cleanup

1. why is MSU the only college that requires a reference link for each alumnus? It is easy for anyone to check out the authenticity of each alumnus (or would be alumnus) listed. All this does is cut down on the number of famous alumni listed for MSU; way below what it should be and makes MSU look bad. Whoever came up with this idea (lovelac7 ?) it’s just plain goofy. 2. Athlete-alumni, on the other hand, are WAY over represented. Why, for example, should Eric Snow, who’s a career NBA back-bencher with several teams, be listed and famous people like Gloria Santona (McDonald’s general counsel), Scot Bales (AZ supreme court justice) or Charles E. St. John (famous early 20th Century physicist) not be listed!

Let’s get our priorities straight, people! … lovelac7… 69.249.236.166 (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

3.Another question - who is this extra in the movie mentioned in the middle of a bunch of famous people? nathan hall was an extra in a movie? why is this in the article? 212.12.146.156 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on #3. Appears to be a vanity edit where editors add themselves or their friends. I have removed the movie extra as not notable. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
As for #1, I think a mix of both would be good, because it makes the page visibly appealing with an organized reference list on Wikipedia, but the page certainly requires mention of other Wikipedia page-less alumni. Sucherju (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Professor Penn matter

The recorded video of Professor William Penn in his class in September 2013 has received a lot of media attention. It has also received the attention of the President and Trustees of the University. To omit the subject would leave the reader of the article, particularly alumni and potential students and parents, with an incomplete picture of the school. My suggested addition includes both primary and secondary source material. It includes a link to a copy of the actual video of Professor Penn and video from a Trustee's meeting. It also includes secondary source material showing the nationwide attention this matter has received. I also think, imho, that the description I wrote was factually supported and took a neutral point of view. I propose that my revision 573514710 (same as 573448050) be reintroduced, unless someone else wants to suggest an alternative draft. 18 September 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.237.50 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If the topic has received significant coverage then it may be appropriate to include it in this article. However, the extent to which it is discussed in this article needs to be balanced against the importance of the topic to the overall topic of this article. In other words, a recent event like this may merit a sentence or two but probably no more in an article summarizing the entire history, organization, and contributions of one of the largest universities in the world. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the extent of the description should reflect it's relationship to the article as a whole. I believe, imho, that the description I wrote is appropriate by this measure as well. It includes just three relatively short sentences. Also, a quick Web search shows that many national media channels picked up the story. 98.248.237.50 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Dp76764, here is where you can discuss this topic. Please do not just remove the material ignoring the discussion, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. If you are concerned with the length, please suggest alternatives. 98.248.237.50 (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a classic case of recentism and a politically-motivated media coverage that should be removed. It's unclear how this episode bears at all on the university as a whole since MSU has taken no actions nor is it apparent how this is historically notable for the university. The content should be moved to Penn's article. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Do a Web search of "Michigan State Professor." The Penn matter dominates the results, with links to the Detroit Free Press, Huffington Post, CBS News, the Daily Caller, the Los Angeles Times, Fox News, the Washington Times, USA Today, ABC News, Business Insider, etc. This matter now has a greater impact on public perception of the University than much/most of the other material discussed on the extensive Wikipedia page. It'll be at least a decade, likely more, before this fades from the public perception of Michigan State. The official actions and inactions of the University, and MSU did take actions despite the statement above otherwise, will be remembered. To fail to include it cheapens the value of the article and Wikipedia as a source of information about MSU and other topics. 98.248.237.50 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Who made the determination that this event had a greater impact on the perception of MSU? It doesn't say that in the source does it? Madcoverboy has a point. There's talk that Prof. Penn was setup. The student who taped him uploaded the video to the Campus Reform channel of YouTube. Last year Dr. Darry Sragow at USC experienced a similar event. A student at USC taped him calling republicans “old, white, racist, and ‘losers" and uploaded it to the Campus Reform channel on YouTube. The USC article doesn't even mention the incident. Some feel the only reason this garnered attention is because Mitt Romney's older brother is a former MSU trustee and currently sits on the board of MSU’s law school.Dkspartan1 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone else want to try a draft in 3-4 sentences? Leaving out this widely covered topic will give the appearance of selective coverage of material and partisanship to this article and Wikipedia as a whole. If no one else is willing to try a draft, I'll look back at the earlier revision and reinstate as it seems appropriate given comments here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.237.50 (talk • contribs) 15:09, November 9, 2013‎
There's nothing to draft up, much less 3-4 sentences. There's no selective coverage going on here and we don't cover everything that's in the news. Instead we appear to have a politically motivated fauxtroversy that is attempting to paint this incident as representative of the university as a whole, which is not borne out by any of the facts about the incident. This is is a matter about Professor Penn, not MSU, and the content should remain on his article, not this one. I remain strongly opposed to the inclusion of any content because it has no bearing on the university, has no enduring historical significance, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for settling partisan scores. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Unregistered editor, you're welcome to draft something and post it here for others to comment on but I am very skeptical that you can find evidence that this event is of lasting importance and belongs in this encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Controversies Section

I have removed this recent addition to the article. Instead of using a controversy section, we incorporate the info in the body of the article. In addition, I don't think this belongs in the article see WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Dkspartan1 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dkspartan1 again. Could you be more specific about what part of WP:RECENTISM this violates? In a historic occurrence, Michigan was named by the president of the United States as part of a 55 university list (never done before in the 30 or so years of TITLE IX or the longer history of OCR) that were under investigation for the mishandling of sexual violence. The historicity has passed the muster on Wiki-review for its own article. As for undue weight, I'd like to also hear why you think this is given undue weight in the article? It has met consensus to be added at WT:UNI, so please feel free to help move it etc., but please do not delete properly sourced and well written content from Wikipedia. Thebrycepeake (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
According to here [5] here [6] and here [7]. You never reached consensus. Just because it passed review for it's own article, doesn't mean it should go here. Several editors disagreed with you using a controversy category. If anything, the consensus was to work the info into the body of the article. In the overall history of this university, you think one investigation deserves it's own category (just MSU, not the overall investigation that will become the new article)? An investigation (of MSU) is not a historic event, they happen all the time. Several editors disagreed with you on this point as well. Did you address those issues? If anything, the only mention in this article should be a link in the see also section to the new article. If the investigation leads to something, then it should be included in the article. It's WP:RECENTISM because we don't know if it will remain notable over time (for the university, not the overall investigation). The investigation ordered for all those schools is one thing, the investigations of the schools individually as a result of that, is another.Dkspartan1 (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Dkspartan1 are also welcome to adding more information to the article about previous investigations at MSU ("The OCR also explained that the previously identified Title IX investigations at Michigan State University and Wittenburg University were connected to not one but two complaints." at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/28/education-department-investigations-title-ix_n_5400345.html). As I mentioned, you can't just remove the information because WP:DONOTLIKE; it is well sourced, from reliable sources, and people agreed that it belonged in the article (as you yourself even said). I would not have undone your edits had you just moved the information into the body of the article, but as it stands you're removing reliably cited information that you argue is WP:RECENTISM, despite both the history of violating federal policies regarding campus sexual violence at MSU (they were fined in 2010 for Clery violations) and MSU's countless references to their committment to a campus safe from sexual violence. Thebrycepeake (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, make sure you tag people in talk page posts, otherwise they might not see what you've written here, which is what happened in this instance. Thebrycepeake (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What's so hard for you to understand? You have not proved there is consensus. It's up to you to prove it. You keep adding a controversy section when based on the links I provided, there is no consensus for it. Then you want me to work it into the article? Newsflash, I'm not here to do YOUR WORK FOR YOU. A couple of editors may be for it's inclusion, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are some who are against it. People who know how to edit would take that as a sign to bring the discussion to this talk page and gain consensus here. Have you done that? 2601:4:1500:C90:F4D1:ED24:48D7:29B2 (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's no longer a controversy section and you still delete properly sourced content. This is simple censorship and whitewashing. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Assault Investigation

There are numerous problems with this information:

1. How significant is this investigation? This is not a historic event. This investigation is no different than any of the previous Title IX investigations the OCR has done on this university. Those investigations are not in the article. Numerous schools have been investigated for Title IX violations in the past, can you provide a wiki article of a university where a previous Title IX investigation is listed? Harvard Law School and Yale University had Title IX investigations in 2011. That info wasn't included in their articles until after the investigation was complete, and only because they where found to be in violation. The fact that they are being investigated isn't notable. I'm not the only who thinks this info shouldn't be in the article. This discussion [8]. is about whether or not it should be in the lead, but it also touches on the topic of not including this info in a universities article at all. Do we know what the lasting effects of this investigation are? No, we don't that's why I consider it WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE.

2. Controversy/Sexual Assault section

In the 150 year history of this university, the mere announcement of an investigation deserves it's own section? Why? Please see this discussion [9] about the topic. The announcement of this investigation is getting it's own section, yet previous investigations aren't mentioned at all in this article? Previous investigations of other universities aren't mentioned in their respective articles? And people think concerns about WP:UNDUE are a BS argument? How?

3. The only reason some are trying to add this info in the article is because the OCR changed their policy about announcing schools that are under investigation. Previously, they would only confirm an investigation if they where asked if there was one. Please see discussion here [10]

I'm happy to include the info in the article when discussion of those points are complete.2601:4:1500:C90:AD64:FF25:BFFC:475A (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's buying your arguments, and consensus is against you. Stop the edit warring and move on. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Saying nobody buying the argument isn't going to cut it. I provided you with proof that other editors disagree with putting it in the article all together. But instead of trying to discuss the issue, you just bully your way through it without providing answers to my simple questions. The original poster created a controversy section in the University of Michigan article for this info. It was promptly removed and the information relocated to the history section of the article with no objection. Then why would there be an attempt to include a new section for the info in this article when they had that knowledge? Why would other editors like yourself not notice that when I provided you with the information?2601:4:1500:C90:F8D0:E012:6115:9C1B (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with it being moved to the history section as a subsection. Unfortunately your attempt to do so also included a deceptive edit summary. You were called on that and the full content was restored, but your partial content was left in place. That was likely an oversight. I'll go ahead and fix it all properly.
Also, remember to log in. You were warned about this. Even unintentional sock puppetry is still sock puppetry, and that will get you in trouble. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

He's right, this should come out entirely. Its not noteable. Its also rather misleading since "investigation" in this case seems to consist of nothing more than being included on a list in a press release. The editor's failure to log his edit properly is not a reason for the content to stay in, and the warning he was given is excessive.

Djcheburashka (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

MSU, "Public Ivy" and "top research university"

User:Nycspartan and I have been going back and forth on the proper phrasing for the description in the lead of MSU as a "public ivy" and "top research university" - the issue is, I think, how sweeping the language can be given the sourcing. We have agreed that since there appear to be only two sources for what's a "public ivy" (the original 1985 publication, listing eight, and a later separate work adding 30 more including MSU), it's fair to say it "is described" as one of them. It's harder to pin down the nation's "top" research universities however and I'm not sure that it's accurate, on the strength of that single source, to make an unequivocal claim here. I think "has been recognized" or "has been described" is a little closer to the sourcing than "is recognized", which implies broad acknowledgment. Anyhow this discussion was unfolding on our own Talk pages and I figured it was better to locate it here. JohnInDC (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever phrasing you use, giving these two books prominent placement in the lead gives them undue weight. ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Mm. Also the US News cite shows MSU tied for 35th. Pretty thin sourcing for the statement now as it now appears. JohnInDC (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I would not object to removing the two sentences from the lead altogether, though, the "Public Ivy" one is discussed further down in the article text and arguably is being summarized here. JohnInDC (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I have revised the text to eliminate the most sweeping statements, which were not really supported by the sources anyhow, and to conform the lead to text that appears later in the article, as leads are supposed to do. The prose may not be the very best, but the substance is sound, and, reflecting as it does the actual content of the article, is less subject to undue weight concerns. JohnInDC (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there a source for the assertion that MSU "pioneered the study of telecommunication"? That seems a bit - broad. JohnInDC (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized now that JohninDC created this talk page about our minor edits in the introduction of MSU's page. I have cached the page as it was before I made my first edit a few days ago to show how much it has improved since, despite JohninDC's argumentative tone. It already has much better grammar, citations, and representation. ElKevbo, please provide other verifiable sources/prominent publications identifying which schools are "Public Ivies" before you state undue weight. JohninDC, how many public universities are in the United States? Let's start there. However, I have revised the page considering your concerns about the previous language. Also, JohninDC, considering your Wiki talk activity and combative tone, I'm beginning to think you are paid to skew facts on the internet according to an agenda. Is this true? I will find the source for telecommunication in the meantimeNycspartan (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, something is fishy here. I have just made an edit as follows: "According to Greenes' Guides, MSU is one of America's thirty Public Ivy universities, which are considered to offer academic quality comparable to an Ivy League institution.[7] U.S. News & World Report ranks the following MSU graduate programs in the nation's top 10: elementary education, secondary education, nuclear physics, industrial and organizational psychology, osteopathic medicine, and veterinary medicine.[8]"

Everything is clear and cited properly, but JohninDC keeps altering the language to obfuscate the facts and writing. There is clearly an anti-MSU agenda here.Nycspartan (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Case in point, the above was just changed to the following: "According to Greenes' Guides, MSU is one of America's thirty Public Ivy universities, the Guide considers to offer academic quality comparable to an Ivy League institution.[7] U.S. News & World Report ranks the following MSU graduate programs in the nation's top 10: elementary education, secondary education, nuclear physics, industrial and organizational psychology, osteopathic medicine, and veterinary medicine.[8]"

How do we prevent this from happening? There is an obvious agenda here... Please provide your thoughts.Nycspartan (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nycspartan, before you cast any more stones you should go read "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks". I have tried to be very clear in my concerns about the broad language you have been introducing - namely, that Greenes' Guides is but a single source (14 years old to boot) for the "Public Ivy" characterization included here, and that single source for (one) definition of a "Public Ivy" is insufficient to support the broad, passive-voiced "is considered" claim that MSU offers "academic experience comparable to an Ivy League institution". If the lead is going to offer up that single-sourced tidbit then it needs to be quite clear precisely what the claim is - namely, Greenes'. Otherwise. We seem to have reached agreement on "top research university" - it is better to confine that to what the sources actually say, and USNR does indeed rank several programs very highly. I'm the one who introduced that language, after all. My only concern about that sentence is the awkward phrasing - the semicolon breaks up the narrative flow, and I'm struggling to find a way to clean that up, as well as to make the lead paragraph, which is an overview after all, a bit less "listy". I am happy to continue the discussion, but after you have read up on how to talk to other editors. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia community concerned about JohninDC and the integrity of MSU's intro. We have already previously discussed the issue above:
You are obfuscating the facts. There are only two major credible sources for "Public Ivy" institutions. The first being Moll's Public Ivies: A Guide to America's best public undergraduate colleges and universities (1985), which you refer to as "the original one." And the second being the Greenes' The Public Ivies: America's Flagship Public Universities (2001), which is an updated list demonstrating the enhanced quality of public education in the U.S. since Moll's 1985 list. Michigan State University is considered/recognized/labeled/described as a "Public Ivy" institution not only in the most updated major credible list of Public Ivy insitutions, but also in public discourse, as public higher education throughout the United States has improved dramatically since Moll's original 1985 list. Consequently, I feel the following language is a reasonable compromise: It is described as a Public Ivy university and recognized as one of the top public research universities in the United States. Looking forward to continuing the conversation if necessary. Thank you! Nycspartan (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I am okay with your language for Public Ivy, since, as you note, there are only two sources for it (though I think the second one is a bit more a stretch than the original - 30 public schools each on a par with the Ivies?). I think you need to do better for "recognized as one of the top public research universities..." in light of the multiple sources for that "recognition" and the source you've offered. It's a lot of weight for that one source to carry - especially in the lead. JohnInDC (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
And this is also on my talk page:
While you are reviewing the policies on assuming good faith and no personal attacks, you should also look into the subject of "edit warring", set forth at WP:3RR. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, fair enough, but I am on to your game and will do everything I can do to expose you. In the meantime, I will monitor your talk pages and will also investigate other usernames you use. In fact, I have already documented every single edit you have made to reduce MSU's introduction. Looking forward to gathering enough evidence to write an op-ed about you and other Wikipedia users alike in the near future. Good luck, pal. Nycspartan (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I will also be contacting the University to monitor this matter. "Before you cast any more stones," lol. Puh-lease. Good luck, John!Nycspartan (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure where my obfuscation is in the above, but in the interest of clarity I will repeat that, at this point, my only objection to the language as it stands is the assertion, in the lead, that MSU "is considered ... to offer academic quality comparable to an Ivy League institution" when only one source says that. Rather than the passive construction, which lends more weight to this source than it can bear, the sentence should say something along the lines of, "Greenes' Guide has identified MSU as a Public Ivy, which Greenes' Guide defines as a public institution that offers academic quality comparable to an Ivy League institution". I'd appreciate the input of any other editors on this issue. @ElKevbo:, are you following? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Or (phrased a bit less awkwardly): "Greenes' Guides considers MSU to offer academic quality comparable to an Ivy League institution and accordingly has identified it as one of of 30 "Public Ivy" universities in the United States". JohnInDC (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nycspartan:, drop the bullshit conspiracy nonsense and cut out the ad hominem attacks. JohnInDC has offered relatively minor changes in phrasing and you've responded with ridiculous attacks which won't be tolerated (or productive).

Concerning the Public Ivy statement in the lead, I'll be blunt since being polite and genial hasn't worked well: What evidence do you have that this is information that is so important for readers' understanding of this topic that this information must be included in the opening of this encyclopedia article? No one questions that the information is published in the two books and is repeated in various publications produced by this university and others focused on marketing and admissions. What is in question is whether this is information critical to our understanding of this subject. If you assert that this information is that important then please provide evidence. (And please note that I am not advocating removing this information from the body of the article, just the lead.) ElKevbo (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nycspartan:? JohnInDC (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: - would you prefer removing the "Public Ivy" language from the lead, or qualifying it? JohnInDC (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I clarified the sentence re "Public Ivy" to clarify what the term means in this context, and per the cited source - this for the time being in lieu of removing altogether the reference in the lead, per ElKevbo's comments as well as the reasoning set forth at Talk:Public_Ivy#Remove_Public_Ivy_from_college_and_university_article_leads.3F; I also copyedited the sentence re the US News rankings to make the sentence flow better. The substance is identical. JohnInDC (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I would not consider being transparent and attempting to highlight suspicious trends of highly skilled and ubiquitous wiki editors "ridiculous attacks" or "bullshit conspiracy nonsense." I visited this school's Wiki page a month ago and noticed how poorly the intro (or lead) was written and how it did not accurately represent the university, so I decided to take action and improve it. Every minor edit I made was immediately followed, for the most part, by an an unwarranted, uncited, and poorly written edit by a high activity editor. After going back and forth, the game got old and it quickly became apparent to me that Wikipedia is a joke, a strange world where information is controlled by a handful of skilled editors that I definitely do not want to ever take seriously, nor should any other human being. The lead looks much better since I started making edits, but ultimately it does not matter, because in two weeks someone else will make other reasonable changes to the lead that a high activity editor will change for the worse to align with whatever his/her agenda is.Nycspartan (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Anybody have any thoughts on which MSU page(s) should have a link to African Studies Center, Michigan State University? --Bamyers99 (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Michigan State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Michigan State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

User:Bigtenhistorian made some edits to the lead. I undid them as too lengthy for a lead and seeming somewhat promotional. Bigtenhistorian thoughtfully initiated a discussion on my Talk page, which we agree is best continued here. I took the whole thing and copied it over, indenting one more level to make it easier to follow. Discuss!

Hi John. Thanks for the invite to Wikipedia. I recently updated MSU's lead and you seemed to have reverted my change because you believed the lead was too long and had a promotional tone. However, I entirely disagree and think that reverting all my heavily-cited changes (all very important, lead-worthy facts about the school) is unacceptable. Please provide me with a better explanation for your reversion. Comparatively, my lead had the same tone and length as most other bigger university's leads on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigtenhistorian (talk • contribs) 16:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I can offer up a better explanation, but perhaps I can provide a bit more detail to help you understand the problem. A lead is supposed to summarize the article. It should be succinct - as has been pointed out, it may be the only part of the article that a reader reads. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section for more. The original lead was 4 brief paragraphs, yet managed to describe the school, its founding, its top-10 programs, and its athletic accomplishments. Your edits nearly doubled the size of the intro, adding heavily-annotated detail that is not suited to the summary nature of the lead (e.g. "In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy selected Michigan State to design and establish the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, a $730 million research facility (set to be completed in 2022) to advance understanding of rare nuclear isotopes and the evolution of the cosmos. The university's sprawling, park-like campus also houses the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, the W.J. Beal Botanical Garden, the Abrams Planetarium, the Wharton Center for Performing Arts, the Broad Art Museum, and the largest residence hall system in the country"). In addition much of what you added was distinctly promotional in tone - and again excessively detailed, such as "The university has produced a notable record of students and scholars earning prestigious national and international scholarships including the Goldwater, Rhodes, Churchill, Truman, Marshall, and Fulbright. MSU is the only university in the United States with on-campus medical schools graduating allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) physicians, and veterinarians (DVMs)." Your edits, while not inaccurate, carry the tone more of a college brochure than the neutral introduction to an encyclopedia article; and as a matter of style, were by reason of their detail and length, a bit cumbersome and off-putting to someone looking for just a quick overview. As for other schools, well - just because something is poorly done in one place is not reason to do it poorly in another. But I contest the premise anyhow - the leads for other Big 10 schools such as University of Michigan, Ohio State University, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Purdue University and University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign are all quite short, in most cases even shorter than the MSU material before your edits. Even Yale University, which has as much to brag about as any school (not to mention history) is about the same length as the original MSU lead. Lastly, a lead should only summarize material that appears elsewhere in the article. I did not check your work against the existing text so I don't know if you were introducing stuff that isn't present later - if so then perhaps the way forward is for you to add some of these facts - in a neutral way - in the appropriate spot in the body of the article.
I hope this is helpful. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Those items you noted above as heavily-annotated, not suitable to the summary nature of the lead, distinctly promotional in tone, and excessively detailed are important features of the school that should indeed be highlighted in the intro. They are neutral facts about the school that give people a proper and succinct introduction to the institution's past, present, and future. There was nothing like "apply today to one of the most amazing universities in the world," which is actually writing in a promotional tone. I believe we should be able to find some middle ground here rather than you simply reverting every factual change to an outdated and unorganized lead. I do agree that we can chop down my proposed intro a bit, so let's work together to improve this lead. Would you like me to draft another, slimmer lead here or just edit the page? Is there a way to move this talk to the MSU page so others can see this discussion and our future discussions? I will look at the other universities' leads listed above and propose any necessary revisions to them as well. Thanks again. Bigtenhistorian (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. I have a couple more comments though. First is that much, if not all, of the material you would like to add is better suited to the body of the text. A broad overview of the school is not the place to note that, e.g., the HANS device or a particular anti-cancer drug were invented there - in the scheme of the school, and its history, those are small cheese. Likewise two (quite recent) proclamations by CBS News concerning the (current) state of the school's athletic achievement is not suitable for four or so paragraphs that must capture the essence of the school from 1855 to the present day. Also while you did not, literally, describe the school as the most amazing university in the world, describing the "notable" records of its students and itemizing six and "prestigious" scholarships they've earned, the gratuitous description of "the university's sprawling, park-like campus" and the "multiple" national championships won by the its sports teams have the distinct ring of the marketing or recruitment departments about them. I did like your sentence about its original name, and have added it back in; also I flipped a couple of paragraphs to make them chronological. Now the lead neatly and neutrally summarizes the school's founding, its relation to the Morrill Act, its progression from an ag school to one boasting several world-class graduate programs, and it athletic successes over the years. Again I suggest you review the Manual of Style link above concerning lead sections - in particular how they are intended to provide a high-level review of the subject, recapitulating or summarizing material already in the body of the text, and (as a general matter) without the clutter of citations and references which likewise should be found in the main body. Finally a lead has to be accessible and direct. I don't mean to be harsh, but much of what you added was just too dense and tedious, lists of stuff rather than prose. I guess the last thing I'd add is that the article is a "featured article", meaning that has been reviewed and evaluated as one of Wikipedia's best. Changes to the lead, which seem to (at least one experienced editor!) not to conform to how leads should look, is reason to proceed cautiously.
I agree that continuation of this discussion is better suited to the article Talk page and so I'll undertake to move it bodily over. That way other editors can comment as well. Thanks for the dialogue BTW, and look for this material at MSU momentarily. JohnInDC (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

First off, thanks for moving this discussion over to MSU's talk page. That was very kind of you. After reviewing the lead manual and thinking more about your comments, I now see what you're saying and agree with most of it. Here's my suggested draft omitting most of what you pointed out as unnecessary. It's much shorter, less dense, has less adjectives, and improves the current lead. Please take a look, see my comments/explanations below, and let's discuss. Thanks again for your help and expertise.

Michigan State University (MSU) is a public research university located in East Lansing, Michigan, United States. MSU was founded in 1855 and became the nation's first land-grant institution under the Morrill Act of 1862, serving as a model for future land-grant universities. The university was originally founded as the Agricultural College of the State of Michigan, one of the first institutions of higher education in the country to teach scientific agriculture. Following the introduction of the Morrill Act, the college became coeducational and expanded its curriculum beyond agriculture. Today, Michigan State University is the eighth-largest university in the United States and has approximately 540,000 living alumni worldwide.

MSU pioneered the studies of packaging engineering, hospitality business, plant biology, supply chain management, music therapy, and communication sciences. Michigan State frequently ranks among the top 30 public universities in the United States and the top 100 research universities in the world. The U.S. News & World Report ranks many of its graduate programs among the best in the nation including African history, criminology, educational psychology, elementary and secondary education, industrial and organizational psychology, nuclear physics, osteopathic medicine, rehabilitation counseling, supply chain/logistics, and veterinary medicine. MSU is a member of the Association of American Universities, an organization of 62 leading research universities in North America. The U.S. Department of Energy selected Michigan State to design and establish the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, a $730 million research facility (set to be completed in 2022) to advance understanding of rare nuclear isotopes and the evolution of the cosmos. The university's campus also houses the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, the W.J. Beal Botanical Garden, the Abrams Planetarium, the Wharton Center for Performing Arts, the Broad Art Museum, and the largest residence hall system in the country.

The Michigan State Spartans compete in 25 intercollegiate varsity sports in the NCAA Division I Big Ten Conference. MSU was the first NCAA Division I athletic program to have multiple national championships in both football and basketball, and remains the only school to have multiple national championships in men's basketball, football, and ice hockey.

The first paragraph flows better this way and only contains introductory neutral facts about the school's history and where it is today. The second paragraph adds music therapy and communication sciences to the list of studies developed at MSU. The school did not pioneer telecommunications. The next two sentences are about where it places in academics. Most schools similar to MSU are listed as "public ivies," but that is a bunch of hogwash in my opinion. Something should be mentioned briefly about its national and international standing, and I think this sentence is most lead-worthy and works quite well. I'm not a huge fan of listing the U.S. News grad programs here, but it seems others prefer them. Perhaps changing it to a really brief sentence like "The U.S. News & World Report ranks many of its graduate programs among the best in the nation" would be more appropriate? The next two sentences in this paragraph highlight its research activity. Other schools are listing the AAU in their leads, which makes sense to show the how the school is classified research-wise. The next sentence is about the Facility of Rare Isotopes. I think this should be included in any introduction to this university as it will drastically impact the school's research activities and direction in the future. The last sentence in this paragraph summarizes what other major facilities are on its campus, which aligns with most other university leads.

The last paragraph is a brief two sentences about its athletics. The first sentence is an intro to their name and division/conference. The last sentence presents two major facts about the program instead of listing out years of multiple championships in different sports as the current lead improperly does. Bigtenhistorian (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 32 external links on Michigan State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michigan State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Old College Field

I've just created the article, anyone with interest in MSU have a look and see if I got it right.....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"People"

This section isn't much more than a haphazard laundry list of alums of varying interest and importance - it's cluttery, not attractive or intriguing in the least, and I plan to whittle it down substantially and, to the extent that I can do it, try to fashion it all into prose that someone might actually care to read. I'll make sure that anyone I remove is represented at List of Michigan State University people, which is really where most of this material belongs. Comments welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sexual assault investigation (redux)

An IP (apparently the same person) has for the past several months been removing a couple of paragraphs about a federal investigation into MSU (along with several other schools) for possible violations of law relating to sexual assaults and harassment complaints. The material is pretty much always restored because the IP never discusses the matter at Talk, and there has been no consensus to remove it. (I was able to locate only one prior Talk page discussion about the material, here.) I've restored the material, again, because the IP doesn't seem to appreciate the need for discussion and consensus, and I'm raising it here because I'm tired of this endless slow roll edit war. So let's talk. Should the material stay or go? TBH I am not sure what happened in the investigation after it was announced in 2014, and if an announcement is all there is to it in the end then it seems, finally, kind of trivial. But I don't know and think that's one of the factors that should enter the discussion.

Have at it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I decided to BE BOLD and took it out. I don't see that anything came of it, at least not as to MSU in particular, and in the end it seems like a bit of a flash in the pan. Plus it's been 5 months since I posted soliciting views, and no editor commented one way other the other. So I acted. Comments solicited. JohnInDC (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"First land grant college"

There's some question whether MSU should be described in the lead as the first land grant college, or if it instead served as a model for the concept. MSU was founded in 1855 and the Morrill Act passed in 1862. I've restored the original text pending discussion here. What do the sources say? JohnInDC (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

First, we need to be clear about what we're discussing: the designation or establishment of Michigan State as the first land-grant university (and not the more generic "oldest institution subsequently designated a land-grant university"). I haven't found any sources supporting that claim. I've only found one source so far with specific dates on which states (a) accepted the terms of the land-grant act and (b) established a new college or designated an existing college as the recipient of this funding (and its associated terms): Volumes 5-6 of The Nation published in 1867. That document says that Kansas was the first to both accept the provisions of the act (February 16, 1963) and to found or designate a specific college (March 3, 1863). Both of those dates precede Michigan's acceptance and designation of MSU on March 18, 1963. So someone making this claim needs to provide some more sources supporting their claim. ElKevbo (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Helpful summary. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this talk page... Prior to enactment of the Morrill Act in 1862, Michigan State University was chartered under Michigan state law as a state agricultural land-grant institution (it received a land grant from the state) on February 12, 1855, as the Agricultural College of the State of Michigan. Michigan State University - as well as Penn State University, which received a land grant from its state for establishment on February 22, 1855 - provided the precedent and served the prototype for future land-grant institutions established under the Morrill Act of 1862. The Morrill Act was a federal program, enacted under Lincoln, that essentially granted land to establish colleges across the U.S. (mainly for ag purposes and also to extend public education). Both MSU and PSU eventually received benefits from the Morrill Act.

There are multitudes of sources, artifacts and documents to support the above and the specific assertion that MSU was the nation's first (or pioneering) land grant university on the web and in libraries. Here are some (there are many many more!):

1. A commemorative stamp honoring MSU and PSU's land grant history. The stamp reads MSU and PSU "first of the land grant colleges." Please note that their football teams also play for the land grant trophy on an annual basis to honor this history... https://arago.si.edu/record_145480_img_1.html

2. MSU sign at entrance of campus... http://research.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/MSU-sign-scaled_0.jpg

3. Summary of this history found in this publication (Google books should allow you to view. If not, check library or buy on Amazon). Alexander, K. W., & Alexander, K. (2010). Higher education law: Policy and perspectives. Routledge.

4. McCabe, M. (2012). First in the Midwest: Land-grant universities changed the face of higher education, and three Midwestern states can claim historic ‘firsts’ in their development. The Council of State Governments. Retrieved from http://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/1214-land-grant.aspx.

"But the region’s strongest claim to land-grant primacy arguably belongs to Michigan, where the nation’s first agricultural college was chartered under state law in 1855, seven years before the Morrill Act was passed. Like the schools that were later established under the federal act, the Agricultural College of Michigan, which later became Michigan State University, was initially funded through a land grant from the state. The Michigan model served as a prototype for the land-grant idea that was later built into the Morrill Act."

5. Clute, O. (1891). The state agricultural college. Bureau of Education Cir-cular of Information. No. 11, History of higher education in Michigan ,edited by A. C. McLaughlin. Washington, DC: GPO.

6. Greater Lansing Michigan Convention and Visitors Bureau. http://www.lansing.org/visit-greater-lansing/greater-lansing-history/greater-lansing-history-timeline/

7. Place, N. (2015). Land Grant & Sea Grant: Events Leading to the Establishment of Land-Grant Universities. University of Florida: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved from http://ifas.ufl.edu/events-leading-to-the-establishment-of-land-grant/

8. The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. (2008). Michigan State University. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Michigan-State-University

9. US News. (2017). Michigan State University. http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/michigan-state-2290

Please continue this discussion or revert your undo within the next couple days. Thanks again. Skiptomylou420 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. They're helpful - but I don't think they bear the weight that you're asking them to carry. I read each one that was available to me. Most describe MSU as "among the first" or "one of the first" or "a" pioneer; not "the" first land grant college. There is a big difference between the definite ("the") and indefinite ("a") article. A couple sources, in passing phrases, e.g., US News and the Greater Lansing Visitors Bureau - describe MSU as "the" first land-grant college, but those blur the distinction between a generic "land grant college" (as MSU was? may have been? when it was founded in 1855) and those founded under the Morrill Act, which as we know came several years after MSU's founding and - as best I can tell - defines those schools that we designate as "Land-grant universities" today. None of the sources that goes beyond a single sentence or slogan identifies MSU as "the" first land grant college. A couple of typical quotes from the sources are the U. Fla article, which places Michigan on the same footing as Maryland and Pennsylvania: "These three states (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Maryland) became the pioneers for the national movement for institutions focusing on agriculture and the mechanical arts." Nothing there about MSU being "the" first. Or - the text accompanying that commemorative stamp (1855-1955) reads, "Michigan State University and Pennsylvania State University eventually were designated as the federal land-grant colleges following the passage of the Morrill Act of 1862." Even the quote you pulled above calls MSU the first "agricultural college", but only that it provided the "prototype" for land grant colleges to follow. Little of what you've provided definitively establishes MSU as "the" first land grant college, and instead tends to support the broader claim that it was "among the first" and served as a prototype for the idea - which concepts seem reasonably well captured already by the lead. JohnInDC (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
In poking around, I learned that the University of Georgia was founded in 1784 on land set aside by the state legislature for the purpose - see http://web.archive.org/web/20120109110249/http://gradschool.uga.edu/about/about_UGA.html - so if we're reaching beyond the Morrill Act to define "land grant college" as any "built on state-donated land", then it would seem that Georgia deserves the title more than MSU. JohnInDC (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
In the end this a definitional morass. What is a "land grant college"? Is it one that is built on land granted by the state or federal government for the purpose? (If so then Georgia wins.) Is it one that has accepted the benefits of the Morrill Act? (If so then others got in line before MSU.) Is it one that is based on legislation that is in the same vein as the Morrill Act, but isn't actually the Morrill Act? (In that case MSU was "first", beating out Penn State by 10 days.) In general usage though, "land grant university" pretty clearly refers to Morrill Act institutions, and it's only by artificially defining "land grant college" backwards to sweep in the Michigan model - but not Georgia - that one can make the claim that MSU was "the first land grant college". Indeed I suspect that this definitional fuzziness is precisely why we come across strange locutions describing MSU's place in this scheme, like "pioneer" rather than the unequivocal (and, well, a bit more prestigious) "first". Heck, even MSU itself can't quite bring itself to say "first" on its signage. In the end, neither the majority of sources nor standard usage support the bald claim that MSU was "the first land grant college", and IMHO the lead is fine as it is. JohnInDC (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:MSU Bronze Sparty 2.jpg

File:MSU Bronze Sparty 2.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 non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Michigan State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Michigan State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michigan State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michigan State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michigan State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michigan State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Confused about name change.

I have a reference from 1898 (Psyche v. 8 p. 198) that calls it Michigan Agricultural College, which seems at odds with this article's claim that this name was not taken on until after 1900. Not definitive, but suggests double checking. Jar354 (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The school was often referred to as Michigan Agricultural College by outside publications, but that was not its formal name. Since the Reorganization Act of 1861 which formally established the school as a 4-year-degree granting college, its name was State Agricultural College. Some references also referred to it as (The) Michigan State Agricultural College --in some cases you see both these references in the same publication as you often do in the annual State Board of Agriculture reports during this period. If you look at official publications of the State, such as the State Board of Agriculture reports and catalogs of the College, of the era, you will note it was referred to as either just State Agricultural College or the Michigan State Agricultural College. To further add to the confusion, campus students and some faculty preferred the name Michigan Agricultural College (or MAC), which you see on the uniforms of the school's fledgling sports teams of that late 19th and early 20th centuries... The State did not officially change the name to Michigan Agricultural College until 1909 and, by then, people were beginning to feel it should be Michigan State College (after all, the engineering program had been in operation since 1885), a variant of which was passed by the legislature 16 years later. --Pulley12 (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Heads up: Planning to balance this article out

This article is not adequately balanced. It fails to adequately cover how in retrospect, it was very foolish for the State of Michigan to allow MSU to develop into a full-fledged research university (the foolishness which Clark Kerr was trying to avoid in California by developing the California Master Plan for Higher Education). I have been reading some chapters of the Noverr book I pulled out of JSTOR and a lot of MSU's darkest moments are missing from this article, such as the 1980-1982 financial crisis and the closure of University College (which could have been avoided if MSU had stayed in its lane in the first place and stayed out of UM's way). As soon as I can find a really good source on how MSU's rise doomed both itself and UM to permanent mediocrity in the shadow of UC, I am planning to add that to the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Terlep, Sharon. "E.L. turmoil angers city". The State News. September 9, 1997.
  2. ^ Mullin, Greg. "17 arrested in weekend riot". The State News. May 4, 1998.
  3. ^ Staff reports. "Thousands of revelers crowd streets in violent, fiery riot". The State News. March 28, 1999.
  4. ^ Phillips, Lauren. "Police, student actions disputed". The State News. April 4, 2005. Accessed April 12, 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michigan_State_University/Archive_3&oldid=1172584884"