Talk:History of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Saving some removed material
This article started with a cut-and-paste from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Wisconsin-Milwaukee&oldid=86192145#History to save material that had been added and subsequently removed as too detailed for the main article. Andrewa 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Another editor has twice now removed two very relevant links from the external links section. The reason appears to be that these external links are already cited inline in the text he has added to the article.
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Embedded HTML links reads in part In the References section, you should also list a full citation. Hopefully, this will also be done in due course. Andrewa 06:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This hasn't happened. The two links in question are:
I've now added the second to the University School of Milwaukee article. Perhaps we also need an article on Milwaukee-Downer College? Andrewa 18:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- We do, but I haven't the time to write it. Can somebody put in in the "articles needed" queue? --Orange Mike 15:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay, so I wrote it anyway. Please examine and critique, if you're interested.--Orange Mike 14:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Looks good! Andrewa 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Section structure
The mass copying of the remaining history section from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has led to a rather strangely structured article. For example, there's now a section headed University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, which is presumably the subject of the whole of this article, not just this section. I don't think it's enough just to rename this section, a whole refactor is needed IMO. Andrewa 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser... the editor who added the section on early history now seems to say below that in his opinion the history of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee only started in 1956. But he's also proposed merging this article with Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee. Wikipedia is very much a work in progress! Andrewa 23:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- What I said is that UW-Milwaukee was created by the merger between the old University of Wisconsin and the former Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee in 1956. The history of Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee dates back to the Milwaukee State Normal School founded in 1880. These are all accurate facts. I didn't specifically pointed out that the history of UM-Milwaukee only started in 1956. I really don't see what you are arguing about. Miaers 03:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't want to argue. Agree these are facts. But you said below I think we need to consider the physical existence of UWM when we talk about its history. What does this mean? Andrewa 09:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The external link of this article provides a source. It starts UW-Milwaukee's history from the Milwaukee State Normal School not the University of Wisconsin in Madison. This is how most people think of UWM's history. Also, I don't think it is a good idea to start this article with the seal. Miaers 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- College articles customarily start with the infobox; also, the seal shows the history of the University through the three dates. Or do you think we should drop the infobox, since it is more suited to the University's main article? (You could be right.) --Orange Mike 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citation needed
I've put a citation needed tag on the sentence University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee was founded in the belief that Milwaukee needs a great public university to become a great city.
Hopefully, this is a well-known and significant quote; If so a citation could save it. Otherwise it's pure academic boosterism (which it rather reeks of anyway). Andrewa 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is just a common sense. I don't think it needs citation or has anything to do with academic boosterism. Miaers 16:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- It is boosterism; sounds like a quote from somebody. If it is a quote, then source it; if not, it's boosterism. --Orange Mike 00:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] De-wikifying
I've removed (again) a number of duplicate wikilinks per the Wikipedia:Glossary guidelines, which say that to de-wikify or un-wikify is: "To remove (de-link) a wikification of an article. This can be done to remove self-references or excessive common-noun Wikification (also known as 'sea of blue')." Some of the UWM articles have a 'sea of blue' problem and I've been trying to tidy it up. Please don't revert such tidyings-up. --Orange Mike 00:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support this. Sorry if we got our wires crossed at one stage. Andrewa 08:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revert boring intro
I've reverted some edits by Miaers that removed most of the intro and replaced it with one that was just plain boring and seemed to offer no advantage. Please discuss. Andrewa 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think it is original work to say that the history of UW-Milwaukee started at the same time as UW-Madison. I think we need to consider the physical existence of UWM when we talk about its history. The seal is just a seal. It does not necessary indicate UW-Milwaukee's hisotry. The seal has 1849 probably because of UWM's special status and role in Wisconsin's education. Miaers 22:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Let's get this straight: You don't think the three dates on the seal are especially significant in the history of UWM?
-
- Maybe we should first work out what we're doing in the infobox at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, which currently lists all three dates as foundation dates for UWM. See Talk:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee#Three dates on the seal, three dates in the infobox where I see you're already contributing.
-
- I'll be delighted to update this article to reflect the decision there once taken. I'm sure it can be done without making the intro quite as boring as your effort... and still a little amused that you take so much trouble to improve an article that you saw as pointless not so long ago. Andrewa 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Read the links, Miaers. The University itself thinks the three dates on the seal are exactly about the University's history. There's a whole section on them in some University publications sourced in other articles. --Orange Mike 15:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- See Talk:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee#Where to now for more on this. Mairs has now unilaterally removed the earliest date from the infobox, leaving the two he thinks are relevant. He has yet to provide any source to justify this, he just keeps repeating his opinions when asked to do so.
-
-
-
- And even here it's a bit curious... I think we need to consider the physical existence of UWM when we talk about its history, he says above. This seems to me to be an argument for having only 1956 in the infobox, not two dates. Andrewa 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Why three dates
Here's a theory as to why three dates... which doesn't belong in the article of course, that would be original research as Maiers will no doubt point out (I think it is original work to say that the history of UW-Milwaukee started at the same time as UW-Madison, he says above). It's an exploration aimed at eventually improving the articles involved.
In 1956, UWM was formed largely from the union of two existing institutions, the Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee and the University of Wisconsin Extension in Milwaukee. The seal was therefore designed with the founding dates of these two institutions, plus 1956. That's not exactly rocket science, and it shouldn't be too hard to source it is my guess.
So now, why do some UWM people (Maiers as an obvious example) want to leave out the first date? That's not rocket science either... in 1956, the overseeing institution was (rather clumsily IMO) called the University of Wisconsin, which had previously been the name of the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. But the Madison campus (which I'll call Madison for short rather than UW) also continued to be closely associated with the name University of Wisconsin, and still is half a century later. In hindsight this was a brutal insult to what is now UWM, especially considering the intense rivalry between UWM and Madison. It heightened the understandable feeling that the whole thing was Madison taking over, and it's still a sore wound. Andrewa 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the problem with that theory is that I'm a fiercely pro-UWM person (graduate and grad student, typing this in a UWM computer lab), who feels that the reality of the situation is that UW-M is basically the old Milwaukee Normal School plus some added resources from the UW Extension, and we should use the 1885 date. However, I feel that I must ignore my own Point of View when the University itself uses the three dates, thus linking more intimately than I think is appropriate to the Madison institution. --Orange Mike 06:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agree with that interpretation 100% (I won't dispute the facts either!).
-
- But, I don't see those observations as a problem for the theory at all. And the idea of having just the 1885 date in the infobox has more going for it than just our theories. It would conform to the pattern of other similar articles, see Talk:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee#Where to now. Andrewa 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Please see discussion at Talk:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Auroranorth 12:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More editing by 129.89.126.148
This UWM IP (apparently a fixed one) keeps purging pre-1956 information from all UWM articles. I'm reverting him/her, but wish I could get some help and feedback. --Orange Mike 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:UWM seal.png
Image:UWM seal.png 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) 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
