Talk:Arizona State University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Editing the Extracurriculars Section

I don't know why people keep insisting on removing the fact that Michael Liburdi is the one who was the primary author of the Constitution. Sure, there was a constitutional convention and all...but anyone who was a part of that knows that it was Mike Liburdi who gave up his life for a couple of months in order to write the consititution. Everyone else just sort of showed up to the meetings and raised their hands to vote. Mike Liburdi deserves credit on this page (if this page is to talk about ASASU and the new constitution at all) for having served such a major role. Everyone else should stop adding themselves into the history. For goodness' sake, let's all give credit where credit is due and leave ourselves out of the history.

And, yes, that includes the two of you who think that you deserve credit for having been the first president and vice president of ASASU since the reformation. I mean, if you're going to do that, you need to list every president and vice president from the begining of time, in addition to everyone who serves after you. Why not just start a new article called "Associated Students of Arizona State University" and you can all practice your standard infighting and one-ups-manship there instead of on the main page. This is just getting ridiculous. Seriously, move it off the main page...it has no place here.

Valu8tion 05:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. To be entirely honest, I'm not sure that ASASU stuff is all that important to include in an encyclopedia article about a large University. Nick 23:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a stub at Associated Students of Arizona State University; if someone could work it into the article, and possibly move ASASU stuff out to there, it would probably work well. I leave it to those more familiar with the situation... Shimgray | talk | 01:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Benja455 04:51 PM, 4 Feb. 2006

I do not agree. The ASASU Constitution is terrible. It contradicts itself and is over-all an extremely flawed document...as far as I am concerned anyone can take credit for it, but it would be the equivalent of insulting themselves. Go ahead and use the stub page as much as you want...I cannot wait until we rewrite the darn thing.

Work needed on this page

I have been watching / editing the ASU page for some time, and it is clear that a few things need to be addressed / changed in this article. I considered placing a "cleanup" flag on the page, but perhaps we can take care of everything here.

First, there is a danger of getting too much detail (and POV) in the sports sections. The level of detail provided in the sports areas are fine for an article about the Sun Devils, but not really necessary for a general ASU article. Perhaps we should have a Sun Devils page that covers all sports in as much detail as desired.

Next, the section on Academics is lacking. We need to provide info about more than the business and engineering schools. There should be added focus on the many other well-regarded programs at ASU such as Anthropology (esp. Institute of Human Origins), Music, Psychology, and the Biodesign initiative. There should also be more general facts about the university--what colleges there are, how many majors there are, how many graduate programs there are, etc. Also, the detail about the individual rankings of programs within the colleges could probably be moved to a new section that lists rankings of all ASU programs.

I also noticed that a bit of an edit war is occurring with the ASASU paragraph. To be blunt, ASASU is a student organization that has little impact on the actual direction of the university. They have no official power, and function essentially as a special interest group that lobbyies the administration about student concerns. The "constitution" that was drafted was the ASASU constitution, not the ASU constitution. ASASU deserves a mention on the ASU page, but that's about it. I have created an ASASU article stub for all those interested in the inner workings of ASASU.

In sum, this article needs work. If you are contributing to it, please stick to facts (NO subjective statements--they are forbidden by Wikipedia) and information that is highly relevant to a basic understanding of ASU. And as for the general style of the article, I'd like to leave you with a quote from Kurt Vonnegut, "What can be said in twenty pages can be better said in five." (or something like that) Nick 06:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The arial photography included on the page is from July 2004 and as such is essentially out-of-date. On-going construction has introduced some significant changes to the campus in the last year and a half, including but not limited to new buildings and dormitories. Maybe we should look for another photograph? phreyan 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Size of endowment

A reader sent an e-mail saying that the endowment figure given in the infobox was out of date. She sent a link to the annual report of the ASU foundation [1]. I got what I thought was the appropriate figure from the annual report. I would be grateful if someone could have a look at the report and double check it. Capitalistroadster 06:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. The total amount is $277.3 million. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Updated Notable Faculty

I updated the notable faculty with more appropriate information concerning Dr. Phil Christensen. Being the Principal Investigator on 2 instruments should be listed in addition to (or instead of) being a Co-I on the MTES instruments on the Mars Exploration Rovers. --ChrisKurtz 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

For such a large university, this article is (at the moment) less than impressive. The history section is copied verbatim from the ASU website (More ASU History), and the article does a poor job of following the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. This article should be an overview of the entire university system, not just the Tempe campus (which is no longer the "Main" campus), and should describe in detail the history, academics, student life, campus, athletics, and notable associations ASU has. Featured articles which set particularly good models for ASU's article are Texas A&M University, Michigan State University, and Florida Atlantic University. —McMillin24 _contribs^talk 09:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Someone placed a good bit of useful info on the page, but there were some problems with it--particularly, it was poorly edited and potentially out of date. If anyone wants to take a stab at sifting through it, see the december 6th edit in the History. -Nick 04:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment vandalized. Reverted it.--BrettxPW 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sparky.gif

Image:Sparky.gif 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) 05:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

Resolved.

In State University&redirect=no&oldid=229100771 the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Employees" :
  • ASU Employees. 2007. Accessed May 2, 2008.
  • ASU Employees. 2006. Accessed November 25, 2007.

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --ElKevbo (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Major revisions to history section

It is nice to see the history section revamped, but there are some problems with the new version. First, it is quite long. There is a separate article for the History of Arizona State University that is a more appropriate place to put many of these changes. The main ASU article should have a summary of the history, and so this section will need to be trimmed. Second, there are problems with over-linking. Dates and years do not need to be wikilinked (see WP:MOS). Finally, there are a lot of external links, which should not be used as they are (instead, the links should go to other Wikipedia articles on those topics). -Nick^talk 19:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok - After trying to shorten the new history section, I realized that the old history section was more than sufficient for the purposes of the main ASU article. I moved the extra-long history section to History of Arizona State University, added the mainarticle tag and restored the condensed version of ASU history for this article. -Nick^talk 19:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Arizona State University

This is REALLY ...!!!!! i cant believe i just put that down... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.158.23 (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments: Colleges in a Table

I was wondering what everyone thought of potentially replacing the lists of colleges in the "campus" section with a single table. Right now, there are several partially-redundant lists of colleges, and I wondered if a table might organize the info better. I created a sample table here: User:schwnj/sandbox. In addition, I was thinking of placing the table just below the campuses in the Academics section. Let me know what you think. -Nick^talk 18:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Athletic coach salary

I am removing a paragraph from the "criticism" section about the salary of some of the ASU coaches. The reasons are this: 1) large portions violate WP:NPOV, 2) This info is not "new" -- all state employees' salaries are public record and have been reported in the newspapers (see, e.g., azcentral.com that lists the salaries of all asu employees), and 3) this is not unique to ASU in any way whatsoever. An article from 2007 [2] states that even then, over 50 NCAA coaches earned over $1,000,000.

I will insert a mention of the salary controversy along with the provided ref in the athletics section where it would be more appropriate. -Nick^talk 06:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Honorary degree for Obama

So my alma mater ASU is saying Obama's achievement is unworthy of recognition??????? Schaum-glendale (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire paragraph/section reeks of recentism. This is an encyclopedia article, not a news story. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we even need this crap? I'd nuke it, but as an ASU student I have an obvious WP:COI, but this is one of those "nobody will care in a year" things that will be relegated to a footnote in history. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I also have a COI, but I vote that it be removed. -Nick^talk 01:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The current version (aloe-vera salesman... poor students) fails WP:NPOV. I have no problem with the info being included, but the current phrasing is clearly intended to disparage the university. Townlake (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, "Arizona state university" is in Republican Arizona...This is politics at its lowest level. Obama is honoring ASU not the other way around and the least ASU could do is to cut the crap and give him the honorary degree or ask loser McCain to give the talk and give HIM as many kudos as he wants: after all he IS a republican. Cvnunavik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvnunavik (talk • contribs) 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. If there are sufficient secondary sources, it's notable enough.--Loodog (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh... Look, I'm from outside of the US, and *I* had heard the news about Obama being denied an honorary degree by Arizona State. He's the head of state of the country, and a pretty historic and major one at that, and Arizona State's actions will go in the history books. People are going to find this an interesting aspect of Arizona State's history for *generations*! --87.194.211.158 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Also outside the US, I agree completly with the above IPer. --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my position above, it's not that I think this situation isn't notable, but rather that in a few weeks, once the hype calms down (and it already has), people will have moved on to the next scandal and this event will seem worthy of no more than a footnote in the history of ASU. So, it is not the WP:N issue that I have, it is that a whole section (like was originally written) would be WP:Undue. -Nick^talk 04:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the section under the title of criticism. While I agree that it is a fairly current events topic it seems reasonable to me that since President Obama is such a public figure that this may last in ASU's history for awhile. --Angrywhiteguy20 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me like a sensible position. I'm a 40-year old Big Ten alumnus and I only know ASU for two things: The Sun Devils football team, and the Obama controversy. Calls to nix this section, particularly from those associated with the university, appear to intentionally underestimate the relevance of the event in order to portray the university more favorably. Just tonight, I saw a Saturday Night Live rerun where ASU was harshly mocked for this decision in a long, unambiguous, and memorable skit. I think the section as it stands now allocates too much space to the university's defense and not enough to the criticism, the reasons behind it, and its most vocal opponents. This was a significant political event, given the combination of the first African American president, credentials of past ASU honorary degree recipients, and a university of modest repute from the home state of the losing presidential candidate. The incident will not be soon forgotten, nor should it.

Someone at an IP address deleted the entire section after I made an update to neutralize the language a bit and add a clarification from ASU President Michael Crow regarding the university policy on sitting politicians with regard to honorary degrees. I'm going to reverse it, per the comments above - right now the criticism section is empty! CouchRambo (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Athletics logo

Most recent edit to this page:

(cur) (prev) 11:35, October 4, 2009 Hammersoft (talk | contribs) (48,835 bytes) (→Athletics: No rationale for use of image, and redundant to main article anyway) (undo)

In response to the rationale for this edit:

-- I have added a fair use rationale.

-- I spent about ten minutes looking up universities. Of the 15 or so I randomly pulled out of the air, the following eleven had an athletics logo of varying size and location on the page:

University of Arizona, University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, Harvard University, University of Michigan, Ohio State University, University of Oregon, University of South Carolina, University of Southern California, University of Texas, Yale University

Both your reasons for editing out the image are now moot, so I have reverted the edit. If you have any questions, please discuss them here before making further changes to the page.

Justin Z (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments do not carry much weight. Sorry. What you now have on the image description page is a rationale that states that it helps identify the "brand" (it's not a brand, it's a university article) and assure readers they have reached the right article. If a person hasn't figured out they're on the Arizona State University article after getting more than 50% of the way through the article, seeing a logo of the university's sports teams isn't going to help them. It isn't necessary to place the Sparky logo on every page related to ASU to reassure readers they've reached an ASU related article. There's 60 articles in Category:Arizona State University. If someone needs to see what the logo of ASU Department of Athletics looks like, they can go to Arizona State Sun Devils. The logo is redundant and completely unnecessary here. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Boilerplate rationales are not useful in this case. What is that logo adding to this page? Nothing, as far as I can see. Furthermore, if other articles are broken, go and fix them, don't use that as an excuse to break this one. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

1) The Sparky logo is a useful and important identifying mark of Arizona State University that helps correctly identify the university to the reader. IMO, it is much more widely recognized nationally than other logos included in the ASU article. For those not familiar with the academic landscape as much as the athletics, it may be particularly useful in distinguishing between the various public universities of Arizona including the University of Arizona, Arizona State University, and Northern Arizona University. 2) There is no policy against the use of non-free logos in more than one article. Each article must have its own notability and could therefore is to be considered an independent article. However, each use of the logo needs to have sufficient fair-use justification. 3) According to WP:NFC 3a, multiple non-free logos can be used in the same article as long as the logos convey sufficiently different information. It is my opinion that the other logos present in the ASU article do not convey "equivalent significant information" to the Sparky logo. 4) One can not assume that a reader has not used use the Table of Contents to directly skip to the athletics section of the article. In addition, for any article, one cannot make assumptions on how a reader navigated to a particular Wikipedia article, or article subsection, either from inside or outside of the various Wikiprojects. Likewise, one can not assume that the user is accessing the information on-line and can navigate to additional related articles (e.g. accessing via Wikibooks or via CD-ROM). This also relates to each article's ability to independently exist based on its individual notability. 5) No one is suggesting the use of this logo on ASU-related articles that are not pertinent to, or have sections that are pertinent to, ASU athletics. 6) There may be better PD-text logos that could be used in place of Sparky, however, in my opinion for this particular case, it is not as useful as a recognizable identifying mark to the reader. If descriptive text about Sparky would be added to article (e.g. historical information or cultural context), its inclusion would be better justified. 7) Redundancy typically pertains to the multiple appearance of and identical logo within the same article, and the redundancy of using athletic logos in articles covering universities in the United States is a matter of opinion, and one that does not seem to have a consensus among Wikipedia editors at this time. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum Sparky is already mentioned in the text, although the logo not critical commented on. The existence of the independent article, Sparky the Sun Devil, that is devoted to the mascot logo in particular with historical information about the design of the image itself, would seem to invoke the guideline of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 point 5. In this case, I can see WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW taking affect as it conflicts with the identification purposes of the image. However, WP:CON would suggest that despite everything stated above, NFC point 5 may trump it until the guideline can be modified to make exceptions for such cases. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

JMilburn, consensus in a discussion started by Hammersoft seems to be that a couple of applications are appropriate:

1. In University articles under the athletics section
2. In an athletics article (I think the logo standalone page could easily be merged here)

CrazyPaco, I think we need to merge the Sparky article into the athletics page (that way there is only one instance of its use...its only a single paragraph).

Hammer, I have asked you on many occasions to attempt to resolve this issue through WP:DR. Instead, you take it to many additional pages acting as if your opinion is consensus, but you have noted that no such consensus exists and there is significant conflict on the subject. For the sixth time, I respectfully request that you (or anyone else) submit a mediation request under terms more to your choosing so we can get a consensus on the issue.

While this logo may need to be removed from some capacities, it can stay in others. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• And BQZip, I've told you on many occasions that your attempts to conflate the logos on season articles issue into so many other issues is pointless. If you can't understand there is a difference in the issues here, then it would be best if you reserved your comments until you can. This is not the same issue. Give it a rest. You can go on for the 7th, 8th, 9th,...57th time for all I care. You keep claiming I'm avoiding mediation every damn time ANYthing comes up about fair use. What's next? Me removing a fair use logo from a template causing you to chastise me for failing to agree to mediation? You'd better hound me there too! I did it!. Bewildering. Absolutely bewildering. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You've made many revisions with regard to fair use. Many of those are completely non-controversial. I have not mentioned anything during or around those, much less asking you to file a mediation request. As a matter of fact, I've defended your actions in some cases. Copyrighted images are explicitly prohibited from user boxes; I don't understand why you think would I have a problem with you removing one.

This situation (copyrighted logos on University pages) has been brought up in numerous venues of which you have been a party to. As a matter of fact, you moved the discussion covering this very topic to separate it from the discussion you started. Why you did so, I'm not going to speculate, but please refrain from moving/refactoring others' comments as you removed them from their context.

As for the mediation request, you said you were going to do so, but you chose not to. Why? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I refactored it because you hijacked the thread and turned it into your own forum for tangential debates across a dizzying array of factors. I started the RfC to answer two questions. If you want to discuss other issues, you're welcome to start your own RfC. Nothing's stopping you. But hijacking other RfCs to get a stage for your own concerns was improper. That's why I refactored it. Troubled by it? Complain elsewhere. As to the never-ending mediation crap, I can count several occasions where you have attempted to conflate issues into the non-free sports logos on seasons debate. You attempted to do it again here. It's disingenuous to conflate this issue with that, and you know it. I'm not going to be baited into conflating the issues. I won't have it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Student EMS

ASU Student EMS isn't an ambulance company. What is the best way to incorporate information about ASU SEMS into the page? I have first-hand contact with the Chief of ASU SEMS but an interview would constitute original research. Dataxpress (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I recently reverted some changes made to the opening sentences of the article. The first change was to restore the wording of "research university," as it provides description of the mission of the university, and in checking with the list of Featured Articles, most of university articles them use the words "research university" when appropriate. Second, I restored the language of the first sentence as it spelled out United States as to be more descriptive to non-US readers. Finally, I removed the portion about being in Tempe, as that is not technically correct, as only part of ASU is in Tempe. As the article mentions, ASU is spread across campuses in three different cities in the Phoenix area. It is contradictory to say that ASU is located in Tempe, then in the next sentence to say that it is also in other cities. I realize that it is quite unusual for a school to not be located within one specific city, but that is the position ASU is in. -Nick^talk 07:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thanks for voicing your concerns here. I dislike the use of "research university" in the first sentence since it is a classification, similar to a ranking, that is not a general statement of fact, but it does have wide use in UNI FAs, so I won't challenge it here. Your point about ASU having multiple campuses is valid, but I'd still like to have something in the first sentence that indicates where it is located to help quickly establish context. I've moved the campus info up to hopefully maintain accuracy while providing critical first-sentence information.

I also want to separate out the largest university fact in order to help preserve a NPOV (see WP:MOSBEGIN) and since this is a fact that can change over time. However, I think the fact should remain high up in the lead due to its significance; hence, why I put it second.

I hope this is reasonable, and I thank you again for your input. —Eustress ^talk 18:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I also just noticed that there was an entire paragraph about the research classification later in the lead, which is redundant. If we keep the mention in the first sentence, then no clarification is needed later in the lead, since the lead is simply a summary of information in the body of the article. Cheers —Eustress ^talk 18:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this article. The new opening looks great. There is one very picky wording thing that I'll mention: The original intro stated that ASU was "spread across four campuses." I think that was a very deliberate choice of words due to ASU's unique organization (see the "campuses" section intro). Saying that ASU is a school "with" four campuses may suggest that they are branch campuses (e.g., Ohio State University-Lima), or semi-independent campuses (e.g., Penn State-Harrisburg). Language like "spread across" or "divided across" conveys ASU's unusual organization. Just a thought. -Nick^talk 19:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've made some additional changes to try to make this more clear. I've also removed the expansion dates, which, again, I think conveys too much detail for the lead. Regards —Eustress ^talk 21:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Colleges/Schools, locations and campuses

I updated the number of schools/colleges at ASU to 15. The University consolidated or disestablished some schools/colleges in recent years. I also created the ASU-Mayo Clinic Medical School location since this is the newest addition to the university and isn't widely known. It needs its own section so that is can be expanded when more information is available regarding this new collaboration.

A clearer explanation of ASU's campuses was needed. More information regarding each campus was added to the introduction explaining simple distinctions regarding each of the university's 4 locations.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Updated Admissions Information

ASU recently began reporting average freshman GPA for first-time enrollees in the admissions process.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Revisions Needed

Revision needed for the imagine described as the "Industrial Arts Building" under the Academics section. That building is actually the School of Human Evolution and Social Change. I cannot find a credible reference from the university that this building was ever named the Industiral Arts Building. http://www.asu.edu/tour/tempe/shesc.html--68.98.115.70 (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Under the ASU-Mayo Medical section, ASC was changed to ASU to correctly reflect the name of the program.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Message to Editors ("Nick")

Thank you for finding the Industrial Arts Building name. I was not able to find the information, the building is no longer called such and has not been since the 1970's when the Anthropology Department moved in. Also, the Tempe campus is colloquially known as the "main" campus of the university. As a local of metro Phoenix, and a native of the area (but not a graduate of ASU) it would be beneficial for Wikipedia to include this information for someone not familiar with the school but looking for more details. I reviewed other universities' Wikipedia pages and it seems like these type of additions are added for informational purposes without citing sources. There also needs to be many revisions to ASU's page that give more information. As it stands now, there is too much focus on the campuses, which are listed multiple times, and not enough information on the background and mission of the university. I am willing to make the changes and add some information, but I ask that information that I give, which will have sources be used to expand the article and not be continually deleted.

Furthermore, I did not violate any copy write as the information taken from the website was quoted from the primary source using quotation marks. I find your assumptions of violations rather overzealous and unnecessary. If you have a problem with additions, as an editor, I would ask you to discuss before removing in order for others to provide feedback. I appreciate your "editing" but if you seem to be more concerned with censoring accurate information and suppressing new additions than actually remaining within guidelines of vague policy.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Quotation marks are not an unlimited authorization to copy, even with attribution. Where there is some special significance to a particular phrasing or that a particular person said it, there is a reasonable degree of fair use to quote. Here is not such a case. There is no reason the information could not be just as effectively presented without relying on a quotation. The quotation in question is also long, which weighs against any claim of fair use for it. Monty₈₄₅ 17:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been spending time reading the guidelines for quoting information and Wikipedia's copyright violation FAQ pages among others, and do not see any limitation regarding the size of a quote. Perhaps you can direct me to the appropriate page? Entire paragraphs copy and pasted are one thing, but a few lines should be within reason. Furthermore, the need arose for direct quotation from the source in order to clear up the confusion regarding the university's own description of its campuses. The editor named "Nick" seemed to have an issue with my wording and repeatedly removed descriptive information.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted material and fair use The language there is necessarily vague about the exact line, partly because legal cases that it is based on only provide very general guidance. In light of the factors provided there, and that I don't see a particularly strong reason a verbatim quote is necessary, I think it is excessive. Also, we generally care less about what the subject has to say about itself, and more what independent WP:reliable sources say about it. Monty₈₄₅ 19:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This, "we generally care less about what the subject has to say about itself, and more what independent WP:reliable sources say about it," is understandable, but often not appropriate nor reasonable since not every aspect of a particular subject is likely to be reviewed by an independent party. As I stated before, I attempted to describe the universities campus makeup but was repeatedly rebuffed. I will attempt another description of the campuses as this information is critical in understanding how the university operates. Obviously, there are separate campuses and a good description of each locations' underlying reason for being should be included.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I would just urge you to exercise as much care as possible in making the description neutral, so as to avoid sounding like the article is promoting the subject. You can also cite to the quote without quoting it. Monty₈₄₅ 20:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, it is greatly appreciated. I will take great care to ensure that the description is neutral and that any "rank" or "accolade" that may be included be from an independent and reliable source OR is altogether omitted if not necessary as part of the description. Please note, that no such accolade, rank, or promotion was part of the original post that caused this dispute.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Updated Intro/new photos

Because ASU has undergone numerous renovations in recent years, some of the photos are outdated. As I find new photos or take them myself, I will be uploading them to Wikipedia to keep this encyclopedic discussion up-to-date.--Fcorrales80 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Devil Walk

In the Traditions section of the article I included a description of the new extended and formal version of the Devil Walk tradition. I included a link to a Youtube video with a 5 minute clip of the Devil Walk in action. I figured it was a way to offer a visual of the tradition and what it would look like in person. I temporarily removed the youtube link until the issue is discussed and a consensus, more or less, is established.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Motto

I updated the motto of the university which is "A New American University," proclaimed by ASU President Michael Crow. "Ditat Deus" was not the motto of the university, but rather the motto of the State of Arizona.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you refer to where Crow specifically said that "A New American University" is ASU's motto? It looks like it's more of a vision statement or slogan to ASU's brand, and I can't find anything on the university's website that claims anything to be their motto.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 00:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am searching for the speech on Youtube of Dr. Crow's announcement. He included "A New American University" as a part of the vision statement when he became president. During his inauguration he outlined the vision statement with four "guiding principles" found here on page 38. The "New American University" motto was used in his statement. I found some evidence that "The New Gold Standard" should be included with the motto A New American University: The New Gold Standard. I will continue searching form more sources.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because it's the vision statement does not make it a motto.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 02:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A vision statement is the longer statement outline on page 38. The motto is a brief phrase like "A New American University". That was something detailed in the inauguration speech I am looking for.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're all on the same page here, the WP:V rules are clear: The burden is on the editor to find a reliable, unambiguous source that says that "A New American University" is ASU's "motto" (using the actual term "motto"), then it is ok. If that can't be found, then the motto is unverifiable and cannoy be included in the article. (However, I also agree that there is no evidence that Ditat Deus is ASU's motto either). -Nick^talk 03:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Until I, or someone else, can find a source clearing identifying a motto, it should be removed.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Enrollment

The reason for the split in campus enrollment ("Tempe" and "All Campuses") is to distinguish the campus profile. Because there are 4 campuses and may sources treat Tempe as a separate entity including ARWU (an internationally respected association) for ranking purposes here - even if they are under one accreditation - allows a reader to better understand the make up of the student body. Because many people search for information regarding Tempe, as opposed to the other 3 campuses, making the distinction will allow those unfamiliar to grasp the university's unique circumstance; therefore, the separation is appropriate.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Department of Education treats them as one campus: http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=arizona+state&s=all&id=104151. That certainly doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't disaggregate them but it's a strong indication that they're considered one campus by some influential bodies. ElKevbo (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A fact which is stated in the lede. The purpose of enrollment figures is to further document campus profiles and distribution of the student body. The article later explains the campus profiles in greater detail with links to main articles delving even further. As I have been researching higher education in Arizona for a project, I found the Wikipedia article on ASU (and University of Arizona) cumbersome, including simple figures that would help me with a "jumping off" point when searching for scholarly articles and archives in a library. The pages had too much outdated information as well. I haven't even begun looking at NAU's page (sigh).--68.98.115.70 (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So then why only list Tempe and Total? Why not all four campuses? (But that would create some confusion as a large number of students take classes on multiple campuses.) I think ASU is making a concerted effort *NOT* to be distinguished just for Tempe. And while I don't expect you to take my word for this, I can tell you that the AWRU rankings are based largely on the scholarly output and awards of ASU faculty (see here), and that ASU faculty affiliations are recorded as simply "Arizona State University" on scholarly articles (particularly since the campuses were combined under Michael Crow), meaning that all campuses are contributing, regardless of what the AWRU lists as the name of the university. (Put simply, AWRU does not actually rank only the Tempe campus.)

The reason I'm so cautious about the campus issue is that I've found it to be one of the single biggest points of confusion among readers and also people I've met in real life about ASU. I've heard people saying that they want to apply to "ASU West" but they can't figure out how. Students think that if they take classes on one campus, they'd have to transfer schools in order to take classes on another campus. This is especially confusing to total outsiders who think that ASU Downtown is an altogether different university than ASU Tempe or whatever. In other words, because this topic produces so much confusion, I don't see what reason there is to keep these distinctions going when there is no official reason to. -Nick^talk 03:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That the college is under one president is clearly stated. That it is under one accreditation is also stated. As I have said before, the student campus population is just a campus profile and should be included for informational purposes. Breaking it down by campus isn't unreasonable as the sources cited do show "unduplicated total" for enrollment figures. The enrollment at each campus is a part of the university and should be included in an encyclopedia. As for ARWU's ranking system, that is another conversation. The page you linked clearly states that scholarly out and awards for faculty are only a percentage of criteria considered (80%)...which has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Another thing to consider, is that while ASU doesn't have separate campuses as a university system, the university has, from its own website, made it clear that each campus is "distinctive" and serve different purposes. And while students apply to one central location, the school/major program they will be accepted into is on a dedicated campus. For instance, you cannot take nursing classes on the Tempe, West, or Polytech campuses; thus, a student must enroll at the Downtown Phoenix campus.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Athletics

More information regarding athletics including expansion, contracts, salaries, and facilities was included to reflect recent developments. If there are any disagreements with what I wrote, please let me know. Thank you.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"A New American University"

Is including the above phrase a promotion or an explanation of how the university presents itself and how others view the school? I think there is a thin line here but wording is important. By stating that "ASU considers..." avoids violating the NPOV policy and avoids an endorsement. That phrase is being deliberated about in sections above concerning its usage in a "vision statement" or as the university's motto. Any other opinions on this?--68.98.115.70 (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit promotional but more importantly it doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of this university. Similar mission, vision, or branding statements can be found at countless colleges and universities so this doesn't do anything to inform the reader about the institution. If independent sources make a big deal about this then it might be worth including. But until then it should stay out. ElKevbo (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources that claim that ASU's mission and vision to create a "New American University" has created a new standard that increases value to education. You can read opinions here and here from the national media.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

More on the "New American University" model instituted by ASU President Michael Crow can be found here as well. I included articles from over the past few years to illustrate that this information on ASU has been a "big deal" in independent sources for a while.--Fcorrales80 (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That Newsweek source is by far the best one in the lot. Cite it in the article when you mention the concept and I'll be content. ElKevbo (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Mission

FC80/Anon -- I noticed that you wrote "The mission of the university is to provide access to a growing urban population." in the intro of the article, citing some article about one of ASU's expansion campuses. However, the actual mission of ASU doesn't mention anything about that. (And the cited article doesn't exactly say that either.) I actually think that sentence should be deleted, because the following sentence that you wrote seems to capture the mission and the New American University thing much better. -Nick^talk 16:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That does work better. The "growing urban population" is unnecessary since the school is in an urban area and that is self-explanatory. I incorporated mission back into the statement since the link explains it in such a way.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Lede - to Anon editor

Ah, you again. Regarding your edits to Arizona State University, please note that it is against wikipedia policy to simply revert properly noted edits just because you feel like it. Your recent reversion refers to the fact that the items edited were discussed on the talk page, which is simply not the case. The info moved from the lede of the article was done in accordance with WP:Lede, ensuring that only central information appears there. If you'd like to discuss, how about explaining the following:

• Why is the very first thing mentioned that asu is a "space grant institution?" Do you feel that is more important than the fact that it's a research university?
• What is a "metropolitan" university vs. a regular university? Who decides this, and please cite that source if official.
• Why is it so important and notable that some of the facilities development at asu is accomplished via public-private partnerships?
• Please provide an actual third-party source (better than some athletic website) that actually shows that ASU is one of the newest research universities. (Pay attention to WP:V as you do)
• Why is it important enough for the lede that ASU tripled it's research expenditures? This seems promotional and PR-ish.
• How do the clubs at ASU "reflect the diversity of the student body?" Do you have a cite for that?

In sum, while I believe that you believe that you are being helpful, WP is built on consensus. I further encourage you to use a real WP login so you can participate officially. After too many unilateral moves by anonymous editors, the page may be protected to block such edits. -Nick^talk 22:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And who decides if your edits were properly noted? Especially if they could easily be verified or your edits are contested...which is why you should use the talk page before making edits. Are you somehow given special authority to delete contributions made by others as you see fit?

• Many universities designated as a space/land/sea (or combination) research institute are described as such in their respective ledes (Ohio State, University of Arizona, Texas A&M, University of Florida, etc. etc.). It is central to defining the type of research that is considered essential to the school; including defining what type of large grants the school receives. I don't think the order in which it is written (either before or after "research university") is of much concern in this case.
• A metropolitan research university is mostly defined as a university serving a major U.S. metropolitan area (namely, the largest metro in each state). This is common knowledge. Many schools in large metro areas refer to themselves as metropolitan research universities; Louisville, Boise State, Arizona State, University of South Florida, etc. etc.
• It is important to note public-private partnership in the lede because a few sections list endeavors of this nature. They also represent some of the largest, planned and currently being developed, investments made to date. The partnerships play central roles in developing and redeveloping important infrastructure, including: some of the largest stadia in the state, the largest network of on-campus dormitories, a new medical school, etc.
• Why can't we use primary source information to verify ASU is one of the newest research universities? The first source linked is not merely "some athletic website", but an official site of ASU (as described at the top of said page). This should also be common knowledge. Of the roughly 150 research universities in the U.S., ASU was one of the last to be named a major research university.
• Since we are describing a research university, it is probably important to note large increases in research capacity. That seems pretty important in terms of defining the university's growth. I'm not sure that stating a fact such as that could be misconstrued as "promotional". Perhaps if there were less neutral descriptors (e.g. "because of ASU's great work, its amazing faculty have attracted more research dollars...")...but here, that is not the case.
• It reflects the diversity in terms of the sheer number of clubs. Later in the article there are more descriptions of which type of clubs and organizations...such as the gay clubs and frats, the student newspapers, student government, Changemaker, Greek life, etc. etc.

Thanks for letting me know about creating a WP login.--68.2.190.199 (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, I found a third party source that describes ASU as "...the nation's youngest major research institution..." Being that ASU is THE youngest, I would say that writing it is "one of the newest" is a valid paraphrase for purposes here. I referenced the article describing ASU as the youngest major research institute in the article.--68.2.190.199 (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly understand why you are writing the way you are, but I caution you that common knowledge is not actually acceptable as a source (see WP:Common_knowledge for details). This is especially problematic with things like "metropolitan university" which is essentially a meaningless term that has no official definition or designation. And its location in the first sentence of the article implies that it is among the single most important facts about the university. Also beware of accuracy of sources. Just off the top of my head, I recall that UC-Irvine is much newer than ASU (1965) and is an AAU member and certainly a research university, and UC-Merced coming up soon (so while I agree that ASU is among the youngest, that article is indeed inaccurate).

You should note that much of my concern about your additions is not about the facts themselves but where you are putting them. Unfortunately we are both entitled to edit as we see fit, so I'll leave it be for now, but know that not every change has to be discussed first, but if you are going to revert a change, you should certainly discuss. -Nick^talk 02:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You are correct and my wording should have been more clearly stated...ASU did not become a major research university (Research I, as prescribed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching) until 1994; which makes it the youngest major research university in the U.S. From information I gather, UC-Irvine was classified as a major research university in 1976, largely due to its inheritance of research dollars from the UC system and the merging of UCI with the California School of Medicine. Therein, the issue lies in word choice which is easily correctable and does not require wholesale deletions. UC-Merced is not a Research I university and does not meet the criteria in either of Carnegie's classifications (i.e. Research I or Very High/High research activity). On the second issue, I don't think there are problems when changes are made, but deleting information that has been verified seems more like censorship.--JavierPHX2013 (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You must forgive me, but I do not understand the conflict(?) with using "metropolitan public research university" when applied correctly. It is widely used in peer reviewed publications and other scholarly articles in academic journals, for instance: IOP Science, ERIC, and IEEE Education Society. I created a WP login; wanted to note that you are speaking to the same contributor.--JavierPHX2013 (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Metropolitan Research University

You can find evidence of ASU being recognized as a Metropolitan Research University from many sources; here, here, here, here, here (UCF outlines what a metropolitan university is and lists peer institutions, among them, ASU), here, here, and here.--24.251.71.79 (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

All of those sources except for one - the slides from the AIR 2009 presentation - are clearly copied from the same source which is the university itself. The AIR source you've cited isn't very strong, either, given that they're just slides from a talk. There should be a paper that accompanied the talk and that would make for a much better source if you can locate it (if you can't, ask me and I can check the AIR archives; I have to upload a corrected version of the paper I presented at the 2013 conference so I'll be digging out my AIR login info anyway). ElKevbo (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That UCF powerpoint doesn't say anything about what makes a school a "metropolitan" university. It doesn't define it in any way. That is a document that shows how one random school that self-identifies as "metropolitan" chose it's peer list (which is not an official list in any way, shape or form. As ElKevbo said, the rest is boilerplate that is all identical text from a single source that seems to date back over a decade. On a substantive note, I'm struggling to understand how the largest public university in the US with students from 120 countries could be considered "metropolitan."

I further note that my primary issue is that there is STILL no list anywhere that defines what a metropolitan university is. Readers of WP need to be able to verify and understand what they're reading. I am hugely disappointed that we're letting a single editor force this arbitrary and nebulous insertion into the first and most important line of the article.-Nick^talk 23:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that since many of the articles that include the use of "metropolitan" are peer reviewed and used by peer academic institutions, it is an appropriate title. You may have a problem using it; nonetheless, it is widely used by research organizations in addition to educational institutions. If your issue is that you do not know what a metropolitan research university is, you will find this definition from a study "made possible with the support of the Ernest A. Lynton Research Grant from the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities" helpful. Read the Executive Summary and Understanding Urban and Metropolitan Universities: Urban and Metropolitan Universities Defined section for more information.--JavierPHX2013 (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

WP also has a section titled Urban university which fits the description and lists criteria. Note that universities refer to themselves as urban or metropolitan depending on their location(s) and missions. If the university primarily serves an urban area, most likely located in a central city, and most students are commuters it is called an urban university. If it serves an entire metro area, like ASU, and seeks to advance specific regional goals while also conducting research with national and international implications it is called a metropolitan university. The Urban University page links to the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities' (CUMU) website. Arizona State is a member institution of CUMU and also a member of the Coalition of Urban Serving Universities (USU). I'll include these links and provide updates on the page.--JavierPHX2013 (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Controvery

The ASU page as it stands is an advertisement for ASU and does not include any record of controversy. Wikipedia guidelines require balanced perspective; Wikipedia is not intended as an advertising platform for organizations or corporations. If you look at the McDonald's page, for instance, there is a record of controvery that is notable and significant. That's why there should be a controvery page. Some issues of controvery are essentially caused externally, or do not reflect on university policy or management, while others do. Those that reflect on the nature and character of an organization in particular should be included.

That's why the Theresa Cameron controvery should be included. Dr. Cameron was a notable person, both as a scholar, but also as a tenured faculty member who was fired by a university. The incident is significant and notable, and was carried by several news organizations.

The initial deletions of the controvery section were by an ASU employee, and only after my edit comments pointed that out did "other" contributors show up to start making the same assertions, always without argument.

The public needs to know that faculty can be fired, and under what circumstances. If you think the university was justified in lettering her go, say so, and make edits accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmaker (talk • contribs) 13:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not forums for debate, they are encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia has readers from all over the world who are reading each article to get a concise explanation of the article's topic. In the case of ASU, it is completely fine to have a section on controversy. I haven't looked, but I imagine that other university articles might have controversy sections as well. However, the biggest concern with the addition of the Theresa Cameron stuff is that it is hardly a controversy of great importance that a worldwide audience would need to know about. The section contributed by Edmaker reeks of POV and is overly filled with irrelevant information about the "controversy." Theresa Cameron's background is not important, nor is her educational background, accomplishments, or date of death. After looking into this case further here, here, and here, I get the sense that Theresa Cameron was a professor who garnered complaints from students, neglected to conduct course evaluations to hide student dissatisfaction, was generally disliked by her supervisors, and exercised poor judgment in copying others' course materials. She was fired for these offenses. In response, she sued ASU three times and essentially lost each time. Searching for other cases against ASU brings up dozens (perhaps hundreds) of cases of people suing ASU for this or that, including wrongful termination. Should the article include every one of the unsuccessful lawsuits against ASU?

Further, in the grand scope of things, of all the potentially controversial things that ASU has been involved in, the Theresa Cameron topic is hardly among the more notable examples. (Does anyone remember ASU not giving Obama an honorary degree and being mocked endlessly by national and international media for months?) It perhaps deserves to be a footnote or ref in a broader statement on the ASU president's "hands-on" approach that brought many firings and controversy. Otherwise the section contributed by Edmaker is full of fluff and certainly violates WP:Undue. (I should also note that looking at Edmaker's other contributions, he/she most certainly seems to be the exact sort of "institutional author" that he/she derides above. The contributions are plainly written by someone with an axe to grind against ASU and contain detail and information about inner-ASU politics and policies that only a disgruntled employee would find relevant.) -Nick^talk 18:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The broad point that many of our college and university articles are overly positive and uncritical is a valid one but this isn't the way to address it. If the former faculty member in this specific situation had prevailed in her lawsuit then I might feel differently. If she meets the notability guidelines then it may be a good idea to have an article about this person and it would certainly be necessary to include some of these details in that article but as things stand this situation doesn't rise to the level of inclusion in this encyclopedia article about the entire institution. ElKevbo (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I echo the concern over not highlighting anything negative in this article. To me, the entire ASU page reads like a campus brochure; it sounds like the greatest university on earth. The general tone of the article is incredibly biased, and a lot of editing should be done to tone it down stylistically. However, a new section of controversies/criticisms should be added. A number of criticisms cited above could be included in a new section, but additionally, something should be stated about ASU's reputation. Unfortunately for those tied to the university, ASU is known as being a party school (this part of its reputation is probably much more widespread than the fact that it conducts a lot of research, or has a few strong programs). It is also known as being a mecca for students who are not particularly qualified to attend other major universities, because ASU will accept pretty much anyone. . Although admissions statistics are displayed, there is no point of comparison or note that admitting almost 90% of applicants to a major school makes ASU a stunning outlier. For example, the University of North Carolina admits 34% of (undergraduate) applicants , the University of Wisconsin admits 66% of applicants , and the University of Texas admits 47% of applicants . The way the article spins this as being holier-than-thou inclusive, this really just means ASU sets a staggeringly low bar. Also, it places way too much emphasis on the admissions statistics of the Honors College students. That's just a tiny subset and could be mentioned, but not given the majority of the content provided in the admissions discussion. I could continue here, but my point is simply that this should explain ASU as good, bad, and ugly-not just from behind rose-colored glasses. Jen.polera (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)jen.polera

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe 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). ElKevbo (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

References