Jump to content

Talk:University of Southern Mississippi/Archive 1

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

Probation and controversy

Whoever keeps deleting this information is making a mistake. The information kept in this paragraph represents a fair representation of the events of the President Shelby Thames' controversy that everyone should know. If there is a problem with the facts, correct them. But to delete the whole paragraph is an abuse.

I have moved the information from a separate header into the history header under Thames' bio. That should solve the problem.

Because the information is a small paragraph, and does in fact represent significant factual events at the university, they well belong in this article and not a separate Thames one. Remember, we only present and correct the facts, not hide them. And dont forget to link to archived articles anything that you paraphrase.

Move page?

Anyone have an objection if I move the page to University of Southern Mississippi (i.e., remove the "The")?Jarfingle 04:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that titles shouldn't start with "the," so I support the change. Cpastern 17:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
However, the word 'The' is both included and capitalized within the official name of the university.
See: http://www.usm.edu/pr/graphstandards/brand.html NKirby 19:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The page should be moved back to The University of Southern Mississippi. "The" is part of the recognized name of the university. See above source. Ligerzero 459 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup / Thames Controversy

Apparently someone injected a large amount of pro-Shelby Thames material into this article in all capital letters. I have cleaned up this material generally, and fixed the capitalization. I have tried to preserve most of the significant positive points about Thames, as they deserve to be heard. But the pro-Thames contingent does itself no favors by inserting hastily written capitalized propaganda. All that does is to reflect poorly on the University as a whole.

I also added a brief "overview" section at the top of the article, that tries to give a general summary of the nature of the institution and its recent history.

I thought about adding some discussion of the U.S. News and World Report "tier drop" issue. As it stands now, there is a brief mention of this. My personal opinion is that the rankings are pretty subjective... their formula considers it a negative if a college flunks out a higher proportion of entering students, which seems counterintuitive. Doesn't a better college demand more of its students, and thus assign more of them failing marks? And was USM really that much better in 2003 (when it was "tier 3") than in 2004, when it was a "tier 4" school? Nevertheless, the "tier drop" was demoralizing and highly-publicized at USM, so I feel there is no choice but to mention it.

I don't fall 100% on either side of the Thames debate, but I do feel very strongly that Wikipedia IS NOT the proper venue to argue the issue.

Here's a thought: I think the majority of the information regarding the Thames controversy under Recent Developments should move to a new page under Shelby F. Thames. There is too much information in that section. Instead, make it a nice summarized paragraph and move the details to Dr. Thames' biography page.

Citations

I really want to nominate this article as a featured article, however I think this article really needs more sources. It's a really good article, but there needs to be some non-OR content. Discussion? /Blaxthos 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I would actually suggest that the article be flagged with {{Unreferenced}}. In just the Recent Developments section the Hattiesburg American is mentioned four times, but there's no specific articles cited.--71.226.79.33 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

It appears the entire History section was copied and pasted from the USM website (http://www.usm.edu/about/history.html). Do we have permission to use that text? Otherwise it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.226.79.33 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Motto

Is "Freeing the Power of the Individual" really the USM motto or just the current marketing slogan? Doing a quick search of the website shows that PR uses the term motto loosely. On 10/25/06 they say the motto is "Southern Miss to the Top!" Freeing the Power... gets mentioned on 12/20/05 and in a president letter in Feb 2006. These are the only mentions of a motto besides the athletic slogan "Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime." It seems to me that USM does not have a real motto.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.178.88.200 (talk)


As a current student, USM's motto is "Southern Miss To the top" which is also used in a call and responce (I.e. Caller: Southern Miss, responce: To the top!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.167.184 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The History section of this entry was copied and pasted directly from USM's website and violated their copyright. To remedy the situation, I revised and condensed it dramatically. I think it now differs significantly enough from their website so that we are no longer in violation of the copyright. Please feel free to alter the text as you see fit. I've also removed the copypaste warning that had been placed on the page. Furthermore, it is possible that other portions of this entry were taken directly from website. I'll try to make sure we are free of any other violations over the next few days. Regards, AlphaEta 06:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job... this has been bothering me for a while now, but I haven't had time to dedicate to cleaning it up. Glad someone else has stepped up to the plate. /Blaxthos 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Photographs

I just noticed the request for photographs for the USM article. I'll see if I can snap some pictures and integrate them tomorrow or over this weekend. /Blaxthos 13:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

My edit summary cut off an important point, naming conventions stress the COMMON names. Commonly the school is not called "The." A long dramafest occurred over the span of a YEAR at Talk:Ohio State University, and it has finally cooled to "no The." Do we have to REALLY get into that, again? Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 05:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of going for rhetoric, let's look at the applicable guideline:

A definite article should be applied only if "The" is used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere.

— Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)
From their history page (emphasis added):
  • "Founded by Legislative Act on March 30, 1910, The University of Southern Mississippi was the state’s first state-supported teacher training school."
  • "To that end, he reorganized the academic programs into colleges and schools, and on February 27, 1962, Gov. Ross Barnett signed the bill that made Mississippi Southern College a university: The University of Southern Mississippi."
  • Student Thesis
External usage:
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ([link): "The University of Southern Mississippi redesigned World Literature, a required general education course that enrolled 1000 students each term, in order to eliminate course drift and inconsistent learning experiences."
  • E-Academy (link)
The name is defined with the article "The" by state statute. Seems pretty clear to me... I'll be glad to take photographs of a University degree, university catalogue, or whatever else you need to verify this information. Unless, of course, you are telling us to ignore our own rules. /Blaxthos 00:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Update - upon emailing the President of The University of Southern Mississippi I was contacted by several officials who explained that the proper title, as indicated by all University guidelines, is The University of Southern Mississippi. They also provided this guide and cited the official title of the official University website and University bulletins as examples. Given the overwhelming evidence I'm going to effect the change and add this specific circumstance as an acceptable example in the guideline. /Blaxthos 20:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is nothing more than a matter of grammatical or structural parallelism. Whether "The" or "University" is the headword, the encyclopedia needs a consistent practice in headings. The substance of the name is not altered by omitting the definite article. The same need applies to everybody, including Ohio State and Penn State. If Wikipedia authors, editors, and administrators succumb to a philosophy that Wikipedia conventions are governed by all the vicissitudes out there, such as whether organizations may be variously listed with or without "The" as the headword, the result will be chaos. Rammer (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move, October

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus; see #Closing statement below. Duja► 10:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The University of Southern Mississippi → University of Southern Mississippi

Per WP:NCD#Universities at "When definite and indefinite articles should be avoided" (cf. George Washington University, Ohio State University which also use the article on official documents). Moved to current title without consensus — see above.

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Strongly Object (see Discussion below). /Blaxthos 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 12:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The exact text of WP:THE#Universities says "When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities. A definite article should be applied only if "The" is used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere" (bold text not mine), and "Finally, if common usage has overwhelmingly rejected the "The", then it should be omitted regardless of university usage." Searching through both Google News[1] and Google Scholar[2], the majority of references either omit the definite article, or do not capitalize it. Ergo, I'd say drop it for this WP article.--DeLarge 13:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. In my opinion, if the official name of the university included "The," it could be argued that I attended TUSM. Just doesn't seem right. AlphaEta T / C 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support We don't do official names, unless they are in common usage. The language at WP:THE is in fact weaker than this; it would ignore a The unless the university also uses it (as happens to be the case here). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closing statement

Despite the votecount, Blaxthos, the sole voice of opposition, has a point here: let me cite WP:THE:

On the other hand, some universities religiously refer to themselves as "... The University of X..." even in running text. If such usage is prevalent on university press releases and press kits, contact information, "about" pages, and internal department websites, and it is reasonably common in external sources (try a Google search)

Well, they apparently do (Standards, page 6) "religiously" refer to themselves as a "The". On the other hand, reasonably common in external sources in the eye of the beholder: it is somewhat common indeed [3]. No prejudice against re-running the RM, but I feel uncomfortable closing it as "move" against Blaxthos's rather strong argument. Duja► 10:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

University of Southern Missippi with no "the", remains more common; and Duja's search finds both "The" and "the", since google does not distinguish. Most of the hits on the page he displays appear to be copies of the University's pages; the remaining one capitalizes after a period.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move the page to University of Southern Mississippi, per the discussion below. Duja's Google search above did little to distinguish between hits for the lowercase and uppercase usage, or cases in which the uppercase title is used in headings/titles. We are not bound solely by Google hits, but a Google News search shows strong evidence that the capitalized version is not common in reliable sources. Dekimasuよ! 06:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the discussion above was consensus to move; those who would move considered Blaxthos's position and were unconvinced. In any case, further discussion, and possibly clarification of WP:THE, is in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Comment - At least two of the editors above make comments that seem like they would never support a title that contains "The", regardless of what WP:THE/WP:NCD states. Again, it seems perfectly clear based on data above (and below) that this is one of those exceptional cases for which WP:THE was specifically crafted, and I do not understand why no one else seems willing to apply it appropriately. /Blaxthos 14:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Never use "the" is one extreme view; always follow official usage is another. I trust they cancel each other out, and leave the median: don't use "the" unless English does and (per WP:THE) unless the University also does to flourish between them. Blaxthos' view is not what WP:THE says and is contrary to WP:NAME, which is policy. It is also clearly not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Data

Discussion

I do not believe that WP:THE means to say that we should consider official usage any more than we do elsewhere; it says that we should not include "The" in University names unless the University does, even if "The" is majority usage. Since "The" is not majority usage, and the University does use it, this exception does not apply here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we not an encyclopedia? As such, shouldn't we pride ourselves in being factually accurate? Are you really convinced that our naming convention guideline should trump factually accurate information (which has now been verified via numerous sources above)? Ironically, as the closing admin noted, this actually falls exactly within that particular guideline. The fact that a number of sites online may get the official name wrong (because this university is the exception to a general rule) doesn't mean that the world's premier free encyclopedia should as well. If we're going for being correct, we shouldn't let a guideline dealing with internal symantics trump the proper name when it has met with that guideline. If we're going for being consistant, I'd suggest that we start by being consistant with following our own guideline. Even the closing administrator notes the "rather strong argument" I have made, and although he also noted that there is no prejudice against a second request, I think in a situation like this we should defer to correctness rather that internal symantics. /Blaxthos 15:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Factual accuracy would be to say that the university always uses, and encourages others to use, The. We should indeed say this; but our article title should use what English in general does. (To offer a parallel, the "correct" title of the late King of Greece was Constantine, King of the Hellenes, and this was Greek official usage; but it's not where the article is, or should be.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this just goes to a core difference of opinion. Guidelines exist because they are just that -- guidelines. Policies have the rigidity necessary for things like WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I believe that if an institution currently in existence "ridgidly" referrs to itself with the proper definite article, directs others to do so as well, and there is external usage then we should be respectful and flexible enough to honour that request. I think this is a perfect example of the spirit in which WP:THE was written. Leave the redirect in place, but use the proper title for the article. /Blaxthos 16:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Southern Miss?

Should "Southern Miss" be described as the way USM is "officially" known? Granted, the phrase is widely used, including on the football helmets. The institution, however, is still University of Southern Mississippi (or, if you prefer, "The University of Southern Mississippi"). Perhaps whoever wrote "officially" meant "unofficially"; the URL preserves the legacy "USM" abbreviation in www.usm.edu. Rammer (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with All-American Rose Garden

All-American Rose Garden is a significant campus feature that could easily be included in the University of Southern Mississippi article. It doesn't seem to be notable enough for a separate article. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There's actually already a section about it, although without citing any sources. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Southern Mississippi. 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, 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 19:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Bennett Auditorium to here

Bennett Auditorium isn't notable, but merging here would be preferable to deletion. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Byxeagle and Deb. Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Southern_Mississippi/Archive_1&oldid=1170208566"