Talk:University of Oregon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nike

Seems like some of the Nike stuff in the Athletics department is pretty editorialized. There's some interesting info regarding the protests, but seems like the article should really be about the UO and not Nike. --Chairboy 02:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

"The Pioneer Statue...is rumored to be Jebediah Springfield from the Simpsons."

Huh? I think that should be the other way around. The Pioneer statue predates the Simpsons by nearly a century.

It would be amazing if someone might be able to tell me what the general student population is like at this school?

• How so? I go here. R'son-W 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

U of O

Every instance of "UO" should be replaced with "U of O". Very few native Oregonians, students, or alumni call it "UO" and calling the University as such sounds outmoded, if not completely alien. --67.164.40.143 12:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

While "(the) you of oh" is certainly used in conversation, in print it is always "UO" after first reference. I speak on authority as a native Eugenean, two-degree UO graduate, and former Emerald and alumni editor. In print, "U of O" strikes me as awkward as "Oragone". --Zygorth 07:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

ASUO section

A student government section would be good.

I think the student gov and emu board sections should be combined into one section called student representation. I also think a new section called student facilities should be created. This additional section will be able to describe facilities such as the EMU and Rec center and go on to discuss the possibilities of renovations that are expected to begin sometime in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.177.65 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon Commentator

The section on the OC in "Student Publications" has become drastically unwieldy. The large amounts of superfluous background should be spun off into a separate page.--Srneuman 09:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

PLC Hall

"Prince Lucien Campbell Hall is an aberration on the campus, due to a mix-up of plans with another university in California."

There is no evidence that this statement is true. None of the following mention it:

• University of Oregon architecture page on PLC
• 125th Anniversary page on PLC

Granted that these are both university sites and it is possible that the university may have reason to hide such a fact, were it true, but it seems unlikely. I might point out that after checking out the information on-campus (I'm a student at UO), and extensive web searching, the only source I can find that states this is... Wikipedia! Today is January 10, 2006, and I'll give a week for someone to hopefully provide a source for this statement before I edit it away. At this point, it appears to me to be more urban legend than fact.

It appears no one provided a source and I found this had no basis in fact. It has been replaced by more historical info.

Athletics

I merged the Athletics section with the Oregon Ducks article that was just created. The main U of O article was getting rather lengthy. Cool cool. Jacob 21:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For some strange reason...

...this university's URL keeps subliminally coming up at the bottom of the screen whenever I open a Wikipedia page on Firefox. Can someone please explain this? --Slgrandson 04:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Now I've found out why: because I installed BetterHistory into my monobook.js some time ago. See this page for more information on the current status of this tool. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mascot

As per a verbal agreement between Walt Disney and the University of Oregon (later affirmed by the Disney corporation after Disney's death), Donald Duck is the official mascot of the University of Oregon. [1] R'son-W 07:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Westmoreland

I am removing the reference to Westmoreland housing as being part of the U of O, because it has been sold. Come September 2006, Westmoreland housing will be privately owned and unaffiliated with the university. --Jed S 00:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up external links

I tagged the section Colleges and professional schools with a spam tag, which doesn't exactly fit (since I am assuming good faith), but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the U of O has its own highly navigable and searchable website, so I don't think we need to have all those links there. Instead, a short encyclopedic (i.e. NPOV, non cut-and-paste, non-advertising) entry on each school and a listing of available programs would be sufficient. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam for more info. Katr67 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I just removed it. Show me another university page that has a similar collection of links -- definitely WP:WWIN. What we need to do is either create pages for the major departments and link to them via the main U of O page in a similar text box to what is on the Harvard page, or a paragraph about the major departments. Jacob 06:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a new section for the Colleges and Schools, with a list of the major departments with a blurb for each, as recommended. I put it under a section marked "Institution", which I moved the current library system section under. I figure it can later be expanded with museums, Portland extension, and/or Abroad programs. Maybe someone more skilled than I am can clean it up/format it better? Cluskillz 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That looks much better, thanks! The whole article needs a massive cleanup, which I've been much too lazy to do, but if I have time this evening I can go over your additions anyway. I've had Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art on my to-do list forever as well... Katr67 21:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Organization

Campus section

I know this section is on the to-do list, but I'm not sure there's been any organized effort to clean it up, and it's just getting worse. I've already made a first attempt to convert the list into paragraph form as suggested, but it just kept growing out of control and I eventually abondoned the effort. I think there are several ways to reduce the bulk: First, we need to determine what is important enough to be included in the section. We need to remember that this section is exclusively about the campus. The buildings may house a department integral to the university such as Chapman Hall housing the Honors Program, but I'm not convinced (so far at least) that the building itself is significant enough to warrant a mention (and the Honors Program is already mentioned under "Colleges and Schools"). Judging by their significance, history, and location (in regards to campus planning), I think no more than the following buildings/complexes should be mentioned (subject to debate of course): Knight Library, Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, PLC, Lillis, Villard, Deady, Johnson, Lawrence, Willamette, Gerlinger, Knight Law, Riverfront research center, Erb Memorial Union, Student Rec Center, Hayward Field, Mac Court, Autzen Stadium, and the Portland Campus (Carson? the graveyard? McKenzie?). And of course, the organization of the campus by Lawrence and the Oregon Experiment with Christopher Alexander should be included. Second, what was extremely difficult was to include the details of every building. The buildings with more to say should receive their own page, such as Lillis and the Museum of Art. The main UO page would then just have maybe a one sentence description or a mere acknowledgement. The other buildings may have an extremely short abstract. Things like the references to "Animal House" for Johnson Hall should be relegated to the Trivia section. Third, it seems like a given that the section would start off with the introduction and overview of the campus, but the organization of the buildings themselves is more fuzzy. I tried organizing the paragraphs around campus organization, but after the Knight library quadrangle, it becomes very difficult. I suppose they can be organized around building purpose, like educational, administrative, athletic, but it's still unclear how to organize within the subgenres. Alphabetical listing would be a catastrophe in paragraph format. Suggestions? Cluskillz 19:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Still needs cleanup and I agree with the above. For starters the Deady and Villard sections should be reduced to one sentence as suggested above and any other unredundant info moved to the respective articles. My adding the {{main}} template is a sort of clunky solution, but is there to suggest a little more strongly than a blue link that more info can be found at the other articles. As far as suggestions for the third point, maybe it would be better to split the buildings off into something like List of University of Oregon buildings, which would be perfectly acceptable in a alphabetized format. Any buildings with further historical/architechtural significance can be mentioned briefly in this article. Katr67 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have been deleting your {{main}}s. I genarally prefer normal wikilinks when the section is so small. As for the rest of the changes, I totally agree with everything Cluskillz suggests. A bit about the orginization of the campus is needed. I think University of California, Los Angeles and Stanford University are well written in that regard. It would be nice to make something like {{Stanford University}} as well. The featured articles include several examples of well written university articles. In particular Duke is a great example. After reading those articles I think this one could be improved quite a bit. Cacophony 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with you deleting my {{main}}s but when I made the Villard section two sentences (and, I think, improved the syntax) you put it back (with the error in the date, which I just fixed)...just wondering. Katr67 21:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten the campus section, converting it from list format to paragraph format (per the to-do list, and lonnng overdue). In the process, much of the information from the previous version was deleted (previous version here: [2]). Please don't be offended if you've contributed the information. I deleted things that were unsourced or seemed to be too detailed for the specific building (this is a section about the campus, not the individual building). It still needs improvement, so please add on or revise what you think needs to be improved, but for detailed info, add it to the respective building page or if it doesn't exist, start one if it is notable. Thanks. Cluskillz (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Athletics section

This section should be an overview of Oregon athletics as a whole. Events such as the Kenny Wheaton interception and the 2001 Fiesta Bowl year would perhaps be acceptable since they are pivotal events in the program, but an annual recap such as the paragraph on the 2005 year should be kept on the main article, otherwise the main UO article would be subject to some serious bloat. The same should go for the 2006 women's soccer season and the women's softball 2006 team. It should contain an overview of the athletic programs Oregon offers, as well as maybe a brief historical outline of each. Cluskillz 19:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the athletics section. I reformatted the section to the following basics: intro, programs & brief histories, mascot/fightsong/traditions. There were a lot of extraneous information and unsourced claims that I've deleted (if you feel some of the deletions should be restored, the previous saved version is here: [3]). As mentioned, updates on yearly events should NOT be on this page, unless they are particularly notable. Keep those specific details to the main articles. As with the campus rewrite, there is still many correction/additions to be done in this section. Hopefully you all feel this is a positive step forward and is something we can build on. Cluskillz (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Carnegie Classification

The Carnegie classifications were changed recently. I edited the page to reflect the University of Oregon's new status.--Theblackgecko 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nikeized logo.jpg

Image:Nikeized logo.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 Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The article needs more color!

zzzz..someone needs to take some pictures maybe; and i know what your thinking..'why dont you do it lazy ass?'- well i live in washington so i cant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 01:34, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Pre

If it mentions Bowerman, shouldn't Steve Prefontaine get a little shoutout? My duck (or even platypus) credentials are pretty thin, so I'm gonna leave the execution to somebody else. But it seems he must have played a major role in the prominence of the t&f program. -Pete 03:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I suppose it's about time I make some acknowledgment of my Griffin roots 'round here ;) -Pete 03:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm sorry, but you look at this article in comparison to other University articles that are FA (eg University of Michigan) and it is clear that this article is beyond bad. I almost think that a complete rewrite is needed. The format and content of this article is woefully inadequate.24.21.180.213 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

I would agree that the article is dreadful, that's why this article is part of WikiProject Oregon's Collaboration of the Week. Feel free to join in! Katr67 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week

I just removed a fair amount of extraneous detail from the "Athletics" section, and tagged remaining items for citation. These details would be more appropriate for Oregon Ducks and/or Oregon Ducks football. Please refer to this version if you want to rescue any of the info for those articles. -Pete (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Endowments

With recent news of an endowment by Lorry I. Lokey, the University claims "the campaign has shot past the goal and now stands at $717.5 million". Is a university press release considered WP:OR or should the current amount listed in the infobox remain? Ljmajer (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not WP:OR unless you wrote the press release, instead it's maybe not quite a reliable source, because of the inherent conflict of interest in a press release, and would be better found in a COI-free source. But I think the $717 million figure is referring to the fundraising goal, not their actual endowment? I think I'd wait until U.S. News updates its figures. BTW: check out the top result of this Google search. Interesting feature of Google, no? Too bad it's not up to date... Katr67 (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that press releases are often admissible as a reliable source, and that it has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the institution issuing the release is big enough and has enough longevity that they clearly have an interest in maintaining factual accuracy. So, I think it's a fine source for establishing a dollar figure. It would not be a reliable source to establish, say, that "U of O has the most prestigious Biology program in the Pacific Northwest" or some such. It's always a judgment call. That's why WP has no definitive list of reliable sources. -Pete (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Katr & Pete, just adding a bit more to the question

re: amount vs. goal. The goal was $600mil. The gift/endowment/pledge amount now stands at the $717mil mark (according to the PR).

I attended the press conference that day (as a vendor). They also announced that the entire science complex will be named after him. I guess I'm asking the same question, again, but should this info be updated?

Cool of Google. Had not come across that before. Ljmajer (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Katr, Very cool indeed. However, did you notice what site that result comes from? I think that the reason it's not up to date is because it's not up to date is because it's not up to date etc etc etc… ;) LJ, let me take a look when I'm not in a meeting…too distracted to give this proper attention right now. -Pete (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that was my point. :) Katr67 (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ljmajer, I still think you're confusing the UO Foundation's current fundraising goal and Lokey's gift, which is an endowment and will be used for endowing various things, with the University's entire endowment, which is what backs the university as a whole. The figure in the infobox is referring to the latter. If what you are saying is that the UO Foundation's goal was to up the entire endowment to $600 million, vs. raising $600 million in this one campaign, can you show me where it says that? Maybe I'm misunderstanding how fundraising works. Note that according to this: http://www.endowmentinstitute.org/report2008/profile189.pdf, as of June 2007, the endowment was $566 million, which is more up to date than what is currently in the infobox. Katr67 (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Further cleanup

With apologies to the respective authors of these sections, I think there are sections that can be re-organized, deleted, or moved into a separate article. The colleges and schools section I feel should be in paragraph form (based on other similar university sections). While much better than my older edit, the subsections are essentially a “disguised” list. I think all of the colleges can be under one section and consolidated. Detailed information (if it’s starting to bloat) can be moved into a separate article and linked, leaving this page clean and about the university as a whole. “Institution” can be changed to “Academics” and can also incorporate a museum section, a truncated version of the “University media” section, and whatever else is applicable. The “University of Oregon and Nike” section seems to not be notable or pertinent enough to warrant its own major section. I’m not sure what the best solution to this is; whether to flat out remove it, move it to a separate article, or trim it and move it to a subsection... I’m not sure what the notability of the “Academic co-curriculars” section is, and it is completely unsourced. I think that at best, it should be put under “Academics” or at worst, simply removed. The “Trivia” section should also probably be removed. I’m not sure its content would be applicable to any section. Should we tag some of these sections so that if they aren't improved/sourced/etc by a certain time they get removed...? I don't know what the standard procedure for this is... Cluskillz (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the University of Oregon and Nike section. I've found that most of the information contained there is duplicated in the Oregon Ducks article. The Martin Smith section is not duplicitous, at least in the Oregon Ducks article, but it has no references. The $100million donation isn't duplicated either, but it doesn't really belong in a Nike section (donation was from Phil and Penny Knight...two individuals; Phil was a co-founder of Nike, but Nike, Inc really had nothing to do with it). It may be appropriate for the Oregon Ducks page somewhere, but probably not here. Further Nike references on this page should be limited (as User:Chairboy wrote above in 2004), and perhaps best suited as part of a different section, like maybe a history section or something. You can retrieve lost info from the previous edit. Cluskillz (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that sure is bold! Your reasoning seems good, but Knight's close relationship with U. of O. is well-documented and is something that's referred to frequently in media coverage of both. It should be included in this article somehow, though I agree that the existing section was probably not the best approach. Might need to track down another source or two to figure out how to best phrase it or where to put it. To my mind, it probably should be in the lead somewhere. A significant and varied financial relationship between (the founder of) one of the state's biggest companies and one of its biggest schools, rooted in the founding of that company's connections to the athletic program. Oh, by the way -- might want to look up duplicitous. ;-) -Pete (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! I actually did look it up (elsewhere), but I think I just read what I wanted to read (it was one of those "worthless" definitions where it just says "characterized by duplicity" and I just read it as duplication). How embarassing! Anyway, back on topic...I agree that the connection should be mentioned, but not in a section in its own. I think it would be best within a history section, which I believe User:Akendall is working on here (not sure when he plans on adding it). I also think some of the information is not particularly notable for the university article. For example, the jerseys, track coaching conflict, and possibly the donation should appear only on the Oregon Ducks page. The whole thing with the WRC...It was a pretty big thing this decade but I'm not sure if it's particularly notable considering the entire history of the university. Then again, I suppose there was a considerable amount of press coverage on it. Not sure if it should be within the history section or......? Just not sure. Thanks for responding...and for the correction. =) Cluskillz (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed the "Trivia" section to "In popular culture", using Dartmouth College as a precedent. I also removed the UO entrance sign image since it doesn't really have anything to do with the section.Cluskillz (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I think Akendall has permanently left Wikipedia--he hasn't edited since August. I'm surprised to see an FA article have an "In popular culture" section, since that title usually disguises what is otherwise a trivia section, but if it got through FA that way (I didn't check the diffs to see if it was added later), I guess it's OK... Katr67 (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I thought the same thing. I just figured if a FA did it, then I guess it's okay to change the section name from trivia. Good point about it possibly added after the FA status though (I'm not clear on how FA works or how to check it). I also checked a few other university FAs and none of the ones I checked had any "In popular culture" or related section, although I'm sure they have had movies filmed there et al. Do you think the section should be deleted or integrated into another section? Exactly how notable is it that some movies were filmed on campus for this article? Isn't it enough that it's mentioned on the Animal House article already? It seems a bit, well, trivial. Cluskillz (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove or clarify flagship reference

I propose that either the reference to UO being "THE flagship school of the Oregon public university system" be removed or be replaced with "one of the two flagship universities in the Oregon public university system". The following is the definition of a "flagship" university found on Wikipedia:

"Flagship university refers to the leading comprehensive public research university or universities in a given U.S. state. Flagship universities are usually the largest public institutions of higher learning in the state and are generally well-known nationally. They are also typically research intensive, Ph.D. granting institutions and usually compete in NCAA Division I athletics. It is also not uncommon for a flagship university to be the oldest public university in a state university system, with most founded as land-grant universities under the Morrill Act. Some states may have two equally strong public universities in a given system. As such, it is possible for a state to have more than one public university referred to as a flagship."

By this definition, Oregon State University fits the classification of "flagship" university more closely (e.g., most research intensive university in Oregon - Carnegie Foundation classification is "very high research activity" opposed to UO's classification as "high research activity", OSU is the oldest public university in the state and is Oregon's land-grant university. All other measures of flagship university do not distinguish either university as being the flagship school (e.g., they are both comprehensive public research universities, both Ph.D. granting, both approximately the same size student body, and both compete in D1 Athletics).

Unless others prefer the reference is removed completely, I will change it to refer to UO being one of two "flagship" universities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowens79 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This is nothing more than "Market-eze" and no where, outside of UO alumni circles, is this school considered the "flagship" of Oregon's University system. At the very least.. provide a credible citation to back it up.98.232.251.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC).

According to this Chronicle of Education job ad, the OUS (university of oregon system) labels the university as a flagship institution. http://chronicle.com/jobs/0000719268-01/?sid=ja The debate continues. --Wiseoleman17 (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

History section

I've added a history section, per the to-do list. It's not particularly in-depth and can use a lot of elaboration. I've just picked out some of the more major events that I was able to cite and put in a brief abstract on each. I figured that since the abscence of a History section is a glaring omission, I'd just get it started and hopefully people will expand on it. Akendall has a pretty good section of the UO's early history (linked in to-do list), but I don't have access to his primary source, which appears to be History of University of Oregon by Henry Sheldon. Unfortunately, Akendall appears to be inactive.Cluskillz (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a section/article on the 2011 presidential dispute? --71.193.177.65 (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There should be mention of Skinner's Butte Academy. Although it does not credit the academy in its official history, U of O is derived from it, in the same way that OSU does not claim to have ever been Corvallis College, but did morph from it before the official "start" date of the university. --128.193.162.56 (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Since when is UO the second oldest public university?

Western Oregon University and Oregon State University are both older, founded in 1856 and 1868 respectively. Please discuss. Jakobees (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Motto

I changed the motto of the University back to its original English translation; "Minds Move the Masses". Mons, Montis is the latin word for mountain not Molem I hope this issue will remain rectified.