Talk:Michigan State University/Archive 2

Riots

Whomever keeps writing "MSU's basketball success had led to riots" needs to STFU. Success doesn't lead to riots, students with time on their hands do. Start another article if you wish to address this minor aspect of MSU. (Unsigned comment by User:141.217.221.212.)

• If you think that students with too much time on their hands (as well as non-MSU students) cause riots, then write it! If you don't like something in the article, feel free to bring it up on this talk page, but please do not tell me or anyone else to STFU. That is completely inappropriate. Lovelac7 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with whats-his-name that while the language is inappropriate the riots are somewhat minor and should be kept seperate from the main article. AStudent 15:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. We need to be willing to show the warts just as much as much as we're willing to make this a PR piece for MSU. Separating it from the main article makes us look like we're underplaying part of our own reputation for purposes of strengthening school pride. It's not the good journalistic way. Stick Fig 11:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I like what you did, Stick Fig, by putting back the riot sentence, but in the Basketball section rather than the Lead section. It seems a good compromise. Lovelac7 19:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Better Photos Needed (too much stadia-itis!)

Can we get some better photos of this great campus? There are way too many sports venues (we get the point, sports are popular, here). Plus, the bulk of shots are of bland modern buildings of the newer South Campus. Can't somebody spend some time north of the Red Cedar River? Also, what about some of the older, ivy buildings, like the West Circle dorms. It's this part of campus that really defines MSU in most people's minds. Also, while the nature scenes are pretty, they are lacking. A college campus, especially this one, is designed to harmonize buildings and landscapes. I could take a camera into the forest, nearby, photograph and post, and call it the MSU campus, but, well, ... you see my point.151.197.64.224 05:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just added photos of the law building. Will try to get more of the 'defining' part of campus next time I'm there. 04:46 EST, 8 May 2006 greenw47

• I think we definitely need a few shots of the 1950s-1960s vintage South Campus buildings. Including just the the older ivy buildings is a subtle form of POV. Lovelac7 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a local amateur photographer who's submitted other photos to wikipedia before. I'll make a weekend trip to the campus next weekend and see what i can get. It's a great time of year for photos there. --Jeff 16:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• cloud conditions are less than ideal today.. light haze causing the blue sky to look muggy. im not sure if im going out today but we'll see what the afternoon holds. --Jeff 16:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a little more information in the cutline about the trail behind the McDonel, Owen, and Holmes residence halls. Since I used to live in McDonel for three years, I think I can qualify students nicknaming that particular area of campus the "Rape Trail." It may be a negative name, but most MSU students will get the reference. Stick Fig 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I originally posted this subsection. In reality, it's more of a minor gripe, but it's still a gripe, and it's more geared toward the plethora/over-rep of sports-oriented photos more-so than the lack old buildings photos, of which there are a few (could be a few more, though). I cannot be but thrilled at the overall quality of the writing in this article which has earned it Feature status, yesterday (again), and raises it well over other college articles (even Harvard’s sucks compared to ours – well, I guess, because there are Harvard, how much does a Wikipedia article mean to them?). I still think, though, the MSU article is somewhat cheapened by 3 sports-venue shots (including 2 of Spartan Stadium). Then, to add insult to injury, the List of famous MSU alumni is lead off with a photograph of the Magic Johnson sculpture outside Breslin. Does MSU= Michigan Sports University? These sports photos tend to belie the great article -- or is it the other way around????152.163.100.138 04:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've completed my trip around campus taking photos and updated articles where I could find good places for them. Ironically, I've left the "Athletics" section very much alone, because the photos contained there are highly appropriate for that section. --Jeff 07:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos, feedback

I'm pretty happy with the photos that are now in the article, but there's only one thing bothering me. I spent alot of time making these HDR photos through processing, but one of the effects is that the leaves, of course, were not quite still for me. This leaves a "Double exposure" type look in the photos I posted.

Now... I went with the HDR photos for a reason.. They have a color depth to them that isn't present in the single exposure shots.. Enough to, for me, overcome the shortcomings present in the photos.. Especially since the true subject of the photos are the buildings.

That all said, I'd like to come to some sort of consensus.. We can have either pretty pictures with some weird double exposed leaves, or boring single exposure shots but the leaves arent moving that aren't terrible.. just not as exciting. Thoughts?--Jeff 07:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I like the new photos a lot. Frankly, if you hadn't said anything, I wouldn't noticed 'double exposure' leaves. One thing I don't like is the caption under the cyclotron. To say that this building 'marks MSU as more than an agricultural college' either sounds paranoid or condescending, depending of POV (and I'm sure you didn't mean it that way). MSU is way past the point of having to constantly verify its existence. I would simply point out the cyclotron is one of the most powerful of its type in the world and be done with it. I don't know what the rest of you think, but that's my $.02 151.197.170.126 02:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've no qualms with you changing it. i take better photos than i caption them.--Jeff 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take it as constructive criticism. I think you did a boffo job. Booyaah, to you! 151.197.170.126 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Rape Trail

Jeff, I'm admittedly a little offended that you removed the "rape trail" reference without saying anything. Like I said in my earlier post, it's not a positive name, but that is the common name for what it's called on campus. I realize you took the photos and everything, but the fact you removed it without even telling me you did I find pretty bothersome. Stick Fig 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• My removal of caption "rape trail" has nothing to do with its' negative nature. I removed it because I didn't find it to have any encyclopedic value as it is not an official name of the trail and thought the change too minor to create a discussion about it. I don't believe it is wikipedia policy to include with every edit a corresponding edit on the article's talk page. If you feel it merits discussion, that is fine by me. I suggest putting it to a vote.
  • If it's not meritable for encyclopedic discussion, should we remove the more-descriptive reference to the "Rape Trail" from the East Lansing Wiki entry? I feel that there is already precedent there for its usage and historical/research value, including that and the fact that the student paper commonly refers to it as such. I guess my feeling was this: Since I mentioned that I added it in the comments, I felt that it merited an argument for its possible removal.Stick Fig 06:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think wikipedia itself should be cited as a precedent for inclusion, though it is appropriate in the article you cited because it's listed under an appropriate category. I like it there, but not here. --Jeff 02:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Rape Trail

Should the Wikipedia article on MSU include the text "Rape Trail" on the caption of a bike/walk path on Michigan State's campus. It is acknowledged as fact that students of MSU refer to the trail in the vernacular as "the rape trail", however, at issue is its encyclopedic value.

Include(1):

• I vote to include this passage, noting the precedents above. --Stick Fig 06:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not Include (3):

• I vote to not include this passage. --Jeff 00:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• I vote to not include this passage. AStudent 07:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Bad idea, doesn't belong in a photo caption in an encyclopaedia article. Guettarda 12:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a vote at all (1)

• Taxman

Need more information. A vote is not appropriate. If you find a reliable reference beyond the student paper to it being called that, it should be mentioned in the article; if not, not. But either way it doesn't need to be in the caption unless that is the far and away primary name. - Taxman ^Talk 14:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah that's kind of why i didn't make a note of my original change. I just did the informal vote because it seemd appropriate. --Jeff 02:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

New 2007 Rankings

If someone feels up to it, here are the new US News and World Report Rankings:

According to the 2007 edition of America’s Best Graduate Schools from U.S. News & World Report, many of Michigan State University’s Professional and Graduate School achieved solid ranking increases. The MSU College of Osteopathic Medicine ranked fourth in the nation on the list of top medical schools in primary care training, which included the allopathic medical schools. The College of Human Medicine bolted up to number 14, from the previous year at number 30 out of a total 144 institutions. The MSU Eli Broad College of Business jumped nine places into the nation’s top 25 business schools at number 23. Ranking 2ndght behind Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was the Supply Chain/Logistics program. The MSU College of Education ranked 14th overall for the second year in a row. The College of Education’s primary and secondary education graduate programs were ranked first for the 12th consecutive year. Additionally, five education programs received top 10 rankings including curriculum/instruction (ranked second), higher education administration (fourth) and educational psychology (fifth). The intellectual property law program at the MSU College of Law ranked 17th, up from 19th last year. Additionally, MSU’s graduate programs in chemistry and biological sciences ranked 42nd and 51st, respectively. MSU’s nuclear physics program ranked second nationally. MSU’s doctoral program in physics overall ranked 29th. (unsigned by User:35.8.157.92)

Got a reference to the IP law program. greenw47

Debate

MSU won the national championship in debate and is really good. It should probably be mentioned. So mention it! (unsigned by User:67.167.112.143)

So mention it! (unsigned by User:AStudent)

Daughter articles needed

As admirable as it is for people to get info into the main article, it’s getting too long, again. I think it’s time to spin some of these new segments off into daughter articles; this is especially true for constituent colleges, like the law school and business school. I think a main university article should only summarize these programs with links to the daughters. The rankings, history, athletics, people, among others, are OK for the main article, so long as they’re kept in their main form.

Also, I’m seeing a disturbing tendency in these new constituent segments to drift back into non-attribution/footnoting. This article originally reached feature status because of the quality writing and the intense use of footnotes. No one could say the article was mere wiki opinion or boosterism. We need to stick with this format. 151.197.64.224 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Check out the new Michigan State University academics daughter article. This will allow us to trim down the Academics section. Lovelac7 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nice job, Lovelac7. I think the main article's sub-headings are fine, so long as they remain compact as they are (and attributed w/ footnotes). While the daughters are great, let's not embark on removing these compact subheadings from the main article (which I'm suggesting you're suggesting)151.197.181.132 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing part of introductory paragraph

"....which has led to teaching assistants running most upper level courses." Simply not true, I graduated in 2005 with a degree in chemistry and only classes at the 100 level are taught by TAs. (unsigned by User:AStudent)

Response to "New 2007 Rankings" and "Debate"

You can use a general overview of these claims (with a corresponding source which must be reliable). However, if you go into a list of specifics and delve too deeply into praising MSU or any of its associated groups, you run the risk of boosterism. This in itself can easily cause the article to lose its featured status. Also, please sign your posts with four ~ so that we can know who said what. Pentawing^Talk 07:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. That came in handy when adding the law school and business school sections. greenw47

In fairness to the anon, MSU did win the National Debate Tournament this year and in 2004. Their debate team seems notable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

11:15 am - Trying to figure out how in the world I can make the business school info go down a line or two so it dosen't sit next to the MSU law school banner.

11:38 am - almost got it! greenw47

What about the med schools?

MSU is the only university in America where a student can study allopathic, osteopathic, or veterinary medicine on the same campus, yet none of these colleges are even mentioned in the article! Their noteworthiness is reinforced by the 2007 US News & World Report rankings. (unsigned comment by Jankow28.)

• I agree that the medical schools deserve mention, but I don't know a lot about them. Try writing your own, or if you don't want to do that, post some source material on this talk page, so that other people can write about it. You might also want to try the new daughter article, Michigan State University academics. Lovelac7 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The nation

I have removed all references to the United States being "The" nation. It is not "the" nation, it is one of around two hundred nations. It may be your nation, but that doesn't make it special in my opinion as it it is not mine, and nor is it that of the majority of Wikipedia users. It is very disappointing to see such an insensitive piece of U.S. centrism repeated over and over again in a featured article. ReeseM

• let me get you some cheese to go with your whine. (elaboration: clearly, any article of any national origin can use the phrase "the nation" because "the nation" is an assumed subject. If the subject of the article was a university located in Kyrgyzstan, and the author of the article said "It is the largest university in the nation.", any reasonable reader would understand that "the nation" is not meant at the exclusion of all other nations but is simply an unbiased english grammatical construct of the assumed subject.) --Jeff 16:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you for fixing the errors, but please do not lecture me on how Americans are oblivious to other nations. As a schoolteacher in a nominally-American territory, I use Amerocentric textbooks to teach students who have never even been to the mainland U.S., so I recognize cultural bias when I see it. Lovelac7 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• I am infuriated that the biased writers of this article insist on calling it "The" university. It is one of over 2,000 universities in the United States alone. The majority of wikipedia readers are not students or alums of MSU. Please remove all sentences containing the phrase "the university." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.198.239.111 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Remove all sentences containing the phrase "the university"? (NOTE: all references to "it" contained within this comment should be considered as a reference to this Talk page's article). Anyone reading an article on a certain University should know that "the university" refers to the article they're reading, as would anyone reading an article on a Mayor (e.g. Ken Livingstone) would know that any reference to "the Mayor" refers to person the article is about. With the same reasoning, the same can be said about any article about a capital city It isn't the only capital city in the world so it shouldn't be referred to as 'the capital'. Also, "The University" only has "The" capitalised at the beginning of sentences - which is gramatically correct - and from reading the article in it's entirety it is completely unbiased (from an Englishman's perspective). TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 02:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that the comment you replied to was meant to be read sarcastically, but yea, you're right.. --Jeff 04:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Demonstration Hall merger

Why was the article on Demonstration Hall, which is specifically linked from several other articles, merged into this main article on MSU? Many other sites — Breslin Center, College Hall, heck even the Rock — have their own articles. Besides, it doesn't make much sense for an individual building to be lumped in parallel with the "North Campus" and "South Campus" headings.Kevin Forsyth 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the article demonstrated sufficient notability for its own page (the alternative would be an AfD). Whether the other places are notable enough is a different issue! In general it is easier for the reader to find allied topics in one place rather than splintered into many articles. One way forward might be to combine the various articles into a master MSU Buildings page. Alternatively by all means find a better location in the main article. BlueValour 16:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Blue Valour, but you merged this article a mere three hours after its creation without so much as merge tag, much less a discussion. Moreover this article is based on the same template used for dozens of other MSU related articles, and it is backed up by footnotes. In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I am moving the Dem Hall part back to its own article. We still need to beef up the article, which I will do when I get back from my vacation. (I'm currently in an internet cafe in Apia, Samoa, so it's hard to write anyhting new.) Lovelac7 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't see any reason for those building to have their own articles, but I do support the notion that a merge tag should have been placed and consensus reached. It is clear that there are enough people actively monitoring these articles that action could have been taken swiftly no matter the consensus. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)