Talk:Washburn University/Archive 1

Archive 1

The final word on Last municipally chartered

According to the Washburn Web site, Washburn is funded by local sales tax, a state operating grant and student tuition. In 1941, the citizens of Topeka endorsed Washburn by voting to establish a municipal university, supported in part by the city and governed by a local board of regents. In 1999, the university’s primary funding was moved from city property tax to county sales tax sources, with the school retaining status as a municipal subdivision of the state. In addition to local financial support, Washburn has received state funds since 1961, which have been coordinated by the Kansas Board of Regents since 1991. Washburn is governed by its own nine-member Board of Regents.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WUrelations (talk • contribs) 21:15, 11 October 2006

Last municipally chartered…

What disqualifies CUNY as municipally chartered? (Or similarly, why is New York City not "in the country"?) Conversely, CUNY and Washburn University both are state-supported universities. I fail to see the finer-point difference that is being claimed here. —Optikos 03:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RE:Last municipally chartered…

Washburn University is NOT State supported. It is funded by the CITY of Topeka through a sales tax and through tuition and gifts. Funding is a HUGE difference and despite it's name, City University of New York, if it's state funded then it's more accurate name would be the University of New York at New York City.

Actually, Washburn does receive state funding; the Washburn Board of Regents does have a Kansas Board of Regents representative (who is currently Franklin D. Gaines), and we do fall under some jurisdiction (at least in trends) of the Kansas Board of Regents. OPIchabod 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There are several serial killers that are graduates of major universities. I'd guess that they aren't claimed as "notable alumni" either. Fred falls in this category. Sorry Fred, no offence intended.

Fred Phelps

Okay, so there has been some debate on whether Fred Phelps should be listed as a notable alumni for Washburn University. While he is an alumni and is definitely notable, would KU or K-State list him if he had graduated from there? Probably not. Sorry Fred, you're gone again in my book.

The question should be whether this is a PR article for Washburn or not. Bobak 17:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The page is, not unlike other university Web pages, somewhat of a PR article. Regardless, I don't think its appropriate to acknowledge the efforts of a person (Phelps) who causes pain and frustration for so many people. OPIchabod 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It should definitely be added. I agree with Bobak. I think that Fred Phelps is one of the most horrible, despicable human beings alive, but I still think he should be added. Wikipedia articles are places for information, not just positive information. The fact that Fred Phelps should testify as to the University's character as much as the graduation of anyone else on that list. --LakeHMM 09:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not even an issue of PR. Fred Phelps is a disgrace to anything he is realted to. It's already noted on the page of Fred Phelps that he graduated from WU. To futher promote his name, and even more the message his name conveys, is as bad as what he does himself. WallStGolfer31 10:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Phelps is notable and there is no debate about whether or not he is an alumni. It seems to me that if the Phelps article links to Washburn, Washburn should link to Phelps. Debates over promotion of Phelps' views with regards to including him in a list of notable alumni seems POV to me. Caladil 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Washburncoa.jpg

Image:Washburncoa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images 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 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Washburncoa.jpg

Image:Washburncoa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

TNA U

TNA Wrestling has a "TNA U" Chapter on campus and they just won the first national tournament. Should this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.4.220 (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms image

Washburn University hasn't used the Coat of Arms for several years. It is actually the family crest of the Washburn family in England. Could this be replaced with the image of the Ichabod or a photo from campus? Eaglemomma (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide some evidence that this coat of arms is no longer in use? And if it's not being used, what does the university use as its official seal? ElKevbo (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The coat of arms is not found on the University's homepage or in any of its official publications and hasn't been since 2005. A page within the website says: "While the family crest remains a symbol of Washburn’s tradition, the visual identity of the school was revised in 2005 with the introduction of an updated logo." (http://www.washburn.edu/main/about-wu/whats-an-ichabod/washburn-family-crest.html) That updated logo is the W with a flame over it you see at the top of the University's homepage (http://www.washburn.edu/). I don't currently have upload privileges but I'm sure the image could be provided by the University.Eaglemomma (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I found a very low resolution image and added it to the article. If you (or anyone else) can find a larger, higher quality image, please replace it. ElKevbo (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)