Talk:University of Missouri/Archive 2

University of Missouri or University of Missouri–Columbia

The university has now dropped the "-Columbia" from the name. (http://mizzouwire.missouri.edu/stories/2007/name-change/index.php) Any objections before moving the article? Dmp348 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The official name of the university has not changed. The announcement made today does nothing more than allow the University of Missouri–Columbia to call itself the University of Missouri for marketing purposes. An enormous amount of weight has already been given to Mizzou by having University of Missouri redirected to this article. I think actually moving the article is uncalled for, and more importantly, would be incorrect.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The University of Missouri(Columbia campus) will for all purposes use the name "University of Missouri, inculding written commujnication, press releases, public relations, written communications, student and faculty recruitment, fundrasing, alumni relations, websites, self identification, marketing, and athletics. Except for offical correspondence within the University of Missouri system. This page should be moved as the term University of Missouri–Columbia will be functionally extinct. The University of Missouri system will now be called the just that, according to the Collegcted Rules of the University of Missouri system, First reference and subsequent references may be University System, UM System, or University. The rules allow for the system to "on occasion from time to time" refer to the entire university as the "University of Missouri." The logo of the Mizzou now reads the "University of Missouri." I see every reason to move the page, and no reason to hold off. Sorry, Lazytiger, I know we have been on opposite sides of this issue before, and I don't want personaly attack you, I think you make some really great edits, and I appreciate your pragmatism on the issue earlier. This is my source for all the above info:

Grey Wanderer, I don't think you used the proper procedure to move the page, as its history has not been moved. It's not gone; it's just still under University of Missouri–Columbia. Since University of Missouri already existed and had history, you needed admin approval and assistance to properly move the article with its history intact (which includes a period for peer review of the change). Did you just copy and paste? These articles have a little twisted up history, so it's not entirely clear how this should be handled. I'm sure you researched and diligently decided upon your method of action, but I still don't think you went through the proper procedures. Please look into this. Thanks.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the page move was a pain in the-- but its all by the book. Because this page had an edit history, what with the debate about the redirects in the past year, the move tool could not be used outright. In this case according to Help:Moving a page there are two choices, one can either list the page at Wikipedia:Requested moves and have an admin do it, or on can follow the steps on Help:Merging and moving pages and merge the page. You will also notice that there is a template on the old page that forbids the deletion of the page to preserve the edit history, the template only appears if you try to edit the page. I also went through and removed all the double redirects, which was a pain because I've been correcting those for over a year now, so I was basically undoing all of my work.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your word for it that it was the best way. Are you going to handle the anon editor that keeps adding Columbia references back in?—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 20:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There's already some opposition from an anon editor. Grey Wanderer, I'm ending up supporting you (as usual). But we need to make sure we jump through the proper hoops so that we have the support of admins when people keep insisting on changing it. For the record, the reason I initially opposed such a change is because I rather liked the uniformity of the campus names. As a Missouri native, I know that University of Missouri means Columbia, Rolla is a top-flight engineering school in its own right, and UMSL and UMKC are sort of considered second-tier, yet they are still reputable doctoral-level research institutions. So the semantic (and whiny) argument about dropping Columbia from the name I felt was unnecessary. However, Rolla has already gone and screwed up the naming system, so what do I care if Mizzou drops Columbia? It's always been de facto, though it's still not entirely clear if it's de jure.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Having lived in Missouri my entire life, I have never met anybody who says they went to the "University of Missouri." They all say either Mizzou or Columbia. And I have seen diplomas from UMC, UMR, and UMSL, and they all say "University of Missouri" with no -city. With the rule change on name publication I agree that thread name should not have -Columbia, to comply with wiki commonality rules. However, the article should have -Columbia because that is the official name used by the university system and people should know that.

Thanks for talking on this page, hopefully we can come to an agreement. I encourage your to what I've written below as there is ambiguity on if there is an official name or not. Also, your personal experience is not a useable source on Wikipedia. Please see the evidence I have provided below to the contrary. Thanks.Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is if you search "MC Hammer" you get a page titled "MC Hammer" because that is how he is known. But to start of the article it clearly points out his real name is Stanley Kirk Burrell. With the curators vote it is no longer a debate that the Mizzou page should be U of MO and not U of MO-C. However, the wiki article is here to share fact and knowledge. The article should start off by sharing the official name of the university until which time that name is changed. I have yet to see an valid arguement for why mention of the official name should be left out of the introduction.

I've included University of Missouri–Columbia in the opening, and I think it belongs there, however "Columbia" is not a name I have found in any of my research to be associated with the University, If you can find a reliable source for that, I'd be glad to include it. Once again there is plenty of ambiguity about what the "official" name of the university is, see below.

I don't know where the ambiguity is on the official name. See link below for press release from Mizzou itself stating "For purposes of official correspondence, first reference to the UM campus in Columbia shall be to the University of Missouri-Columbia." That seems cut and dry to me on what is official. http://www.missouri.edu/news/name-restoration.php

On official correspondence the name "University of Missouri–Columbia must be used. On official letters from the chancellors, official T-shirts, official transcripts, official MU banners, official commencement speeches, when telling CNN about a new gene discovered, When discussing MU on the floor of the Missouri senate the name University of Missouri will be used, which ones official? Don't forget to sign your post with four tildes.Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Things to Consider regarding naming

I liked the uniformity as well, but to be a university in Missouri it seems you have to change your name at least once a decade. I want to put out four points and see where Lazytiger stands on them, anybody else who wants to thrown in their opinion please do. My assertions are in bold and my evidence/support follows. Thanks.Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

...you have to change your name at least once a decade.

Ha. So true, it seems.

Some clarification on "official correspondence"

Found here: http://www.themaneater.com/article.php?id=28386

MU will still have the regional designation as a part of the official campus name in what the amended regulation refers to as “official correspondence.”

UM system spokesman Scott Charton said examples of this would include forms to the state or legal letters involving MU.

Found here: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/11/29/columbia-distinction-dropped-universitys-name/

MU will still have to include the “Columbia” in any official documents, including budget documents and legal letters.

Found here: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/92F2C47DEC4FD713862573A30018B629?OpenDocument

The school still would have to use its hyphenated Columbia name for "official" correspondence. MU Chancellor Brady Deaton said that includes contracts, legal documents and other times when clarity is needed. He said the school would use its judgment in deciding which name to employ.

This effectively means that the general public will no longer see the name "University of Missouri–Columbia" being actively promoted. As far as the school using its judgement, I can guarantee they'll never use "Columbia" in any public-facing situation.

More info of interest (from the first link):

Tony Luetkemeyer, student representative to the Board of Curators, said the provision does not change all that much.

“The change to the collected rules just recognizes what is already a reality,” Luetkemeyer said.

Board of Curators Chairman Don Walsworth also said the name restoration for MU will provide some consistency in how it is referred to by the public.

“It confirms what people already know through athletics and other things,” Walsworth said.

During the meeting, Walsworth said he looked at the letterhead of 10 different schools at MU. Of those, only one included the regional designation.

I do believe that part of providing some consistency would be to not use "University of Missouri–Columbia" at the beginning of this article. However, that's not to say that the change isn't controversial, on Wikipedia and at large, and shouldn't be treated somewhere in the article... just not in the first sentence/paragraph/section. That should be reserved for an introduction with timeless, vital information about the subject, not squabbles about the name or any other ephemeral issues.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 05:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued prevalance of "Columbia"

I was just poking around Mizzou's website to see how often "University of Missouri–Columbia" continues to be used. While it has been removed from the top-level design of the site, its use is still quite prevalent on various college and department websites. This isn't surprising at all; it will of course take a bit of time before the vestiges of "–Columbia" disappear. I also read here that they do not intend to change any signage around campus (example: ). So while there is plenty of fodder with which to argue, I still believe that "–Columbia" should not appear in the introduction of the article. We should try to establish the consistency intended by the Chairman of the Board of Curators. The name change controversy could be respectfully treated in its own section where the amount of detail needed could be given.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that dropping "–Columbia" is not compulsory; just because the top-level administration is eager to drop it doesn't mean that there won't continue to be schools, departments, and/or individuals using it out of disagreement, ignorance, or indifference. And you can be sure that UMKC and UMSL will refer to MU with Columbia included. I'm kind of contradicting my argument, but I just want to come to the best decision on what to do here.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 02:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's my .02 on the recent a/k/a "Columbia" debate. I appreciate Grey Wanderers restraint on 3R. Coming from a small upstate town, it was also referred to as "Columbia." While I personally found it confusing considering my roots in the J-School where Columbia University is god and also because there's also a Columbia College, I always knew what folks were talking about when they said Columbia. Of course, I also know what they were talking about when they talk about "Lawrence" and "Lincoln." Americasroof 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have different experiences with how they and people they know refer to Mizzou. One person above said he never ever heard anybody refer to it as "University of Missouri", but I do so all the time—especially because I now live out of state and that's what people recognize. You say people in your circle call it "Columbia"; I have also heard people call it that, though less commonly. To me it's just too ambiguous, as you also noted. I've really only referred to it in two ways, to two definitive groups of people: if they're from Missouri, I say I went to Mizzou. If they're from anywhere else, I say I went to the University of Missouri. I've never had anybody be confused about where I went to school.

I think this whole thing is pretty childish. There are many university systems that have definitive flagship campuses, yet have regional designations in their names. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. University of Colorado at Boulder. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Indiana University Bloomington. University of Wisconsin–Madison. All are also commonly and unmistakably known by their generic "University of _____". They somehow aren't afraid of people thinking they're regional institutions. This is why I'm having a hard time fully supporting this semantic pettiness from Mizzou.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 05:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of university systems around the country that have regional designations and yes they are afraid of losing their "definitive" flagship status to a regional name. Chancellor Emeritus of the University of California - Berkeley, Robert M. Berdahl, gave a well written convocation to Texas A&M in 1998. He affirms the importance of protecting the stance of flagship universities when saying:

"No state can afford to build many flagship universities. They cannot be built quickly. They cannot be built by faculty who do not meet the highest standards of scholarly research. They cannot easily be built from institutions that have historically not been involved in much research or graduate education. Once built, they can be easily destroyed by political intrusion or financial neglect.

But flagship universities are vital to our future. If states such as Texas do not work to protect and promote the excellence that UT Austin and A&M here in College Station have achieved and will build upon, the best and the brightest students will either have to leave the state or settle for a less challenging education offering fewer opportunities for them in the future. Unless the state recognizes and supports excellence, excellence will not develop and we will all be the poorer for it."^[1]

The University of Missouri hss succeeded in asserting its status as the Flagship University in the State of Missouri by restoring its name to what it was when it was founded in 1839 (the University of Missouri System was established in 1963). The name has been restored and should be reflected in the title of the article. The name was University of Missouri from 1839-1963 and will be from 2007-present. If necessary, the name "University of Missouri - Columbia" can be included in the history of the University of Missouri, as the name was used for 44 years during the 169 year history of the University of Missouri. Only a blip in the radar screen. Thanks. --C6Au79 (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My proposal on the name change

After doing some research (outlined above) and mulling it over, my proposal is this:

1. The article should remain in the University of Missouri namespace.
2. The first sentence of the article should read: "The University of Missouri–Columbia (also officially known as the University of Missouri, Mizzou, or MU) is a..."
3. The first sentence should remain that way until such a time when it can be demonstrated that usage of "University of Missouri–Columbia" has become relatively obscure. E.g., few (if any) schools, colleges, departments, and/or individuals use the term on their websites, stationary, etc.; signs around campus are changed; nor is it used anywhere else reference or mention of the university regularly occurs (journals, newspapers, etc.). OR, such a time when the Board of Curators actually changes the official name of the university.
4. There will be no mention of the controversy over the name in the introductory section. It will be handled appropriately elsewhere in the article. The introduction is for steadfast, vital information, not ephemeral issues or news.
5. If "University of Missouri–Columbia" is still the official name of the university at the point in time when it is deemed obscure by a consensus of Wikipedia editors, the name will still have to be mentioned and discussed somewhere, but needn't be in the article introduction.

• Only time will tell how effectively Mizzou's administration can eradicate the use of "University of Missouri–Columbia". It is important to note that dropping "–Columbia" is not compulsory.
• I hope at least five people will vote yes or no on my proposal here within the next few days. Please vote below, and leave any comments if desired. Thanks!—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 21:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Support That compromise sounds reasonable to me. Dmp348 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Support Sounds great, thanks for your work LazyTiger.Grey Wanderer | Talk 03:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This is outrageous. The University of Missouri is the name of 4 schools in the school system. The University of Missouri (Saint Louis) chapter is still a University of Missouri as is Kansas City and Rolla chapters. Just because Columbia is the largest chapter doesn't give it rights to this namespace. Redirect to University of Missouri System and place this article where it belongs under University of Missouri-Columbia. The administration of Mizzou is one POV and the other 3 colleges in the system are other POVs to be represented. This is Wikipedia and WP naming conventions decide what occurs here. Alatari (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• comment The official system web page still lists all four schools all named University of Missouri. This POV has to be represented when naming the page and in the usage of University of Missouri thru the article which may also refer to UMSL or UMKC or UMR. The frequency of University of Missouri web usage from the other three systems were not counted or discussed in common usage criteria. Not enough editors were polled before the name space change was made and the change was not made by an administrator thus losing the history from the University of Missouri-Columbia page. Alatari (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• comment The collected rules and regulations of the University of Missouri System make clear that name "University of Missouri" is never to be used to refer to any campus but the Columbia one. In popular lexicon I can't imagine a case where "University of Missouri" would be used to refer to UMSL or UMKC. The move did not have to be made by an administrator as long as proper proceeder was followed, because this page had an edit history, the move tool could not be used outright, in this case the "merge" function is used, this is discussed above, please take the time to read the debate above, sorry for all the commas.Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• comment The rules and regulations of the Curators don't decide common usage and are only one POV to be considered. Anyone attending the non-Columbia campuses are referring to their own campus when they say I attend the University of Missouri. The combined number of hits of various usages:
  • "University of Missouri" Kansas City = 1.4m hits.
  • "University of Missouri" KC = 1.55m hits.
  • "University of Missouri" Rolla = 0.36m hits
  • "University of Missouri" St. Louis = 0.3m hits
  • "University of Missouri" Saint Louis = 1m hits
  • "University of Missouri" Columbia = 3m hits
  • "University of Missouri" = 0.18m hits
• Of all searches "University of Missouri" straight is the least used term. Whereas "University of Missouri" Columbia has 3m hits the other 3 uses have 4.6m hits total implying that "University of Missouri" is used in a very wide spread manner. Alatari (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing is considered original research and what you have provided is not considered a Reliable source. I'm not sure what the statistics above mean or how to interpret them. By the time I got to the 20th Google page the results were rarely about what was search for, this is far to inaccurate and confusing to base anything on.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Never seen hit counts or Alexa usage called original research. Neither have you offered up common usage statistics from any source. And you did the same thing here which makes this hipocritical. Alatari (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and "University of Missouri" straight gets over 4 million hits making it the most used term, yes?Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No it gets 180k hits. Alatari (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Google does not included the word "of" in its search. So to add to the inaccuracy your also getting all the results for "University in Missouri" and things like that.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

When I clicked on the above links, I documented the following number of hits

"University of Missouri" Kansas City (1,370,000)

"University of Missouri" KC (1,420,000)

"University of Missouri" Rolla (363,000)

"University of Missouri" St. Louis (313,000)

"University of Missouri" Saint Louis (873,000)

"University of Missouri" Columbia (2,910,000)

"University of Missouri" (3,250,000)

This would mean "University of Missouri garnered the largest number of results in a google search. However, if anyone understands how a Google search works, this data would mean nothing. Google searches a page (the entire page) for the words provided separately (unless in quotations). Columbia was not included in the quotations, so a page that said "University of Missouri" and had contact us at Columbia, MO 65211 at the bottom of the page would return a result. A better experiment would be to search "University of Missouri - Columbia" and "University of Missouri - St. Louis" etc. These results are as follows:

"University of Missouri - Columbia" (689,000)^[2]

"University of Missouri - Kansas City" (358,000)^[3]

"University of Missouri - Rolla" (213,000)^[4]

"University of Missouri - St. Louis" (73,400)^[5]

When examining this data, we must consider many variables. The University of Missouri (located in Columbia) is the largest University in the System and therefore would have the most websites (or google search results). The University of Missouri - Rolla is officially changing its name to Missouri University of Science & Technology on January 1st, 2008 and has already started transitioning the information on its websites. I hope we can all see from this data that we are not experts on statistical analysis and should refrain from using our own research as it can be bent by bias. I do not support the data I have obtained and am using it as an example.

Will the students attending Missouri University of Science & Technology continue to unofficially go by the name "University of Missouri - Rolla?" Only time will tell, but this is no reason to not change the University of Missouri - Rolla's page name to Missouri University of Science & Technology. This is because the University of Missouri System has given University of Missouri - Rolla the right to use the name Missouri University of Science & Technology. The same view should be applied to Mizzou. This talk page has continuously documented the University of Missouri System's approval of the name University of Missouri for the Mizzou. Thanks. --C6Au79 (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the common usage for the University of Missouri System is University of Missouri by anyone referring to all 4 schools. This concept is extraordinarily easy to comprehend. Mizzou is the common term for University of Missouri-Columbia Alatari (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• comment I guest we just have an old-fashioned disagreement here. The whole reason that the curators enacted the name change was that "University of Missouri–Columbia" de facto called "University of Missouri," and now the term "University of Missouri–Columbia" is essentially vanished from the public eye. On news programs for instance the University of Missouri System is called exactly that, and now the system is even requiring that the media call it that, but letting the media call Mizzou simply the University of Missouri. The counts above are not original research those numbers are from the MU website and only say how people navigated to the MU website thats a far cry from your numbers. I think I'm going to wait for comments from the other involved parties before I get anymore involved.Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• comment At risk of further fanning the flames, I'll address the use of Google hits to determine common usage. Since the "University of Missouri" namespace is at issue here, it seems to me that it boils down to this question: When "University of Missouri" is used without a city affixed to the end, what is it referring to?

While a search for ("University of Missouri" Kansas City) does yield 1.4m hits, most of the pages contain the phrase "University of Missouri-Kansas City" rather than "University of Missouri" standing alone, which is what we're looking for.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your overall premise, Alatari (the administrators' campaign to drop the "-Columbia" seemed petty to me). It's just that those Google searches don't indicate what "University of Missouri" standing alone refers to. Perhaps the place to start would be a search that filters out the names with cities attached, such as "University of Missouri" -"University of Missouri-Columbia" -"University of Missouri-Kansas City" -"University of Missouri-Rolla" -"University of Missouri-St. Louis"

All that said, I think common usage is a rather fluid and subjective concept, and trying to determine it is like trying to nail down Jello. I hope we can all civilly reach a compromise here. Dmp348 (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, this looks like a fun discussion.  ;)

I just wanted to add a few thoughts here. Personal disclosure: I am a student at the University of Missouri (the one in Columbia ;)) and have a lot of personal ties to Columbia and to the University (again, the one in Columbia).

I agree with Grey Wanderer that it is not clear how to interpret the Google results cited by Alatari, since they appear to be internally inconsistent. My reasoning is as follows: my assumption is that the count of pages containing the terms "University of Missouri" and "Columbia" should necessarily be less than or equal to the count of pages containing the term "University of Missouri", since the former is a subset of the latter. The same holds for Kansas City, St. Louis, and Rolla. Yet Google returns far fewer pages for "University of Missouri" alone. So something is simply "off" with the results, suggesting that Google hit counts are not giving us the kind of information we wish to know -- and even if they were, it doesn't seem that they would support or contradict Alatari's conclusions.

I would also point out that the earlier statistics Grey posted here were not Google hit counts, but rather data derived from UM-Columbia's web referrer logs for www.missouri.edu, taken from http://www.missouri.edu/news/name-restoration . Of course, the original log data used to generate these results is not available to us, so it is not possible to verify them independently -- I am only pointing out that it is not hypocritical of Grey to be dismissive of the Google results.

Alatari makes the following comment:

Anyone attending the non-Columbia campuses are referring to their own campus when they say I attend the University of Missouri.

This statement is technically true, but must be interpreted carefully lest we wind up assuming the very point we are trying to prove. When a UM-{Kansas City,St. Louis,Rolla} student makes the statement "I attend the University of Missouri", one of the following must be true:

1. the student is referring to the University in general and not to any specific campus,

2. the student is referring to his or her own campus, or

3. the student is lying.

We can probably agree that extremely few UMKC, UMSL, or UMR students who say "I attend the University of Missouri" believe that they are lying, and therefore almost any such student must be referring to the system generally, or to his or her own campus. But this point is vacuous; the relevant question here is not whether a student who says "I attend the University of Missouri" is referring to the system generally and/or to his or her own campus, but rather how often students at campuses other than Columbia actually say this.

My own experience would suggest that students at UMKC, UMSL, and UMR rarely refer to themselves as "students at the University of Missouri" without qualification. However, my own experience could be heavily skewed by the fact that I myself grew up in Columbia and have been a student at MU for more than seven years; most people talking to me know this, and therefore might be more likely to use the regional designator for the purpose of disambiguation. I cannot offer objective data here, and I don't believe anyone else has either.

I went to Rolla and we called it the University of Missouri. I've attended classes at UMSL and it was referred to as the University of Missouri by many people and faculty without adding the 'St. Louis' qualifier. It's too much extra verbage. Our Diplomas clearly spell out University of Missouri without qualification. The hundreds of thousands of diplomas handed out need to be used as an indicator. Alatari (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in no position to dispute what you say about common usage at UMR/UMSL -- but common usage at UMR/UMSL (or, for that matter, at Columbia) are not the same thing as common usage generally. And if common usage is the criterion, then the phrasing used on a ceremonial document like a diploma is not relevant. Adam (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We would have to ask the source desk whether diplomas are a valid source in this regards. Alatari (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Another comment by Alatari:

Mizzou is the common term for [the] University of Missouri-Columbia.

Mizzou is certainly a common term for the University of Missouri-Columbia. Similarly, "Ole Miss" is a common term for the University of Mississippi -- but so is "the University of Mississippi." That "Mizzou" is commonly used to name the Columbia campus of the University of Missouri does not imply that other names are not used as well; "common" usage certainly may make a distinction between formal names and informal nicknames. (I make no particular claim about what the common formal name for MU actually is.)

I would offer a couple of additional, and contradictory, data points:

1. "www.missouri.edu" directs users to UM-Columbia's website, while the system's website is found at "www.umsystem.edu". missouri.edu was first registered in 1987, umr.edu in 1988, umkc.edu and umsl.edu in 1989, and umsystem.edu in 1990, suggesting that the four UM campuses have had separate Internet identities (with UM-Columbia claiming the general "Missouri" moniker) since... well, long before much of anyone was paying attention.  ;) A similar situation exists with respect to athletics (Mike Kelly doesn't say "TOUCHDOWN MISSOURI-COLUMBIA!!"), though I believe this is the result of a specific exemption for athletics that had been granted to UM-Columbia when the four-campus system was established (and is now redundant in light of the "name restoration").

When Rolla football players scored a touched down they screamed the "Miners' scored and at Columbia they scream the "Tigers" scored!... You are making the non neutral point of view of this article very clear. Columbia is not the only University of Missouri school with sports programs. Alatari (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand -- would you deny that (a) UM-Columbia is often referred to in athletic contexts as "Missouri", and (b) the other UM campuses are not? Adam (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

2. In my experience (yes, that means I don't have hard data to back up this assertion), most papers, posters, etc. authored by affiliates of UM-Columbia identify the institution as "University of Missouri-Columbia". With the curators' recent decision, this is likely to change very rapidly, but it hasn't quite happened yet.

Taking all of the above into consideration, we still have to decide what the proper guiding principle is here. I can think of a few possibilities, with varying consequences (and I'm sure others will see even more possibilities):

1. "We should use the campus' official, legal name." Then the article should be named University of Missouri-Columbia.

2. "We should use whatever name is promoted by the University system." Then the article should be named University of Missouri (as evidenced by the curators' recent decision).

3. "We should use whatever name is promoted by the campus." Then the article should be named University of Missouri (as evidenced by much recent crowing on the part of UM-Columbia's administrators and marketing people).

4. "We should use whatever name is most commonly used." This raises the question of what constitutes "common usage."

This is what Wikipedia policy

4a. If we are referring to casual, everyday speech, then the article should probably be named "Mizzou".

4b. If we are referring to written usage -- academic papers, news stories, etc. -- then the article should probably be named "University of Missouri-Columbia", but this may change as the "University of Missouri" moniker becomes more widespread.

(Side note: it seems to happen rather often that campuses other than Columbia are referred to in the media simply as the "University of Missouri". Two particular examples I can recall off the top of my head: I have seen Kris Kobach, a right-wing/anti-immigration professor of law at UMKC, referred to on The O'Reilly Factor as a professor at the "University of Missouri", and one morning several months ago my heart leapt into my throat as I awoke to CNN's coverage of a shooting at the "University of Missouri" -- but slowly came to the realization that I didn't recognize the building pictured on screen; the incident had taken place at UMR. I make no comment on whether or not this kind of usage is "correct" -- I'm just pointing it out.)

That is blatant support that all schools in the system are commonly referred to as the University of Missouri. Alatari (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is one data point that lends some measure of support to that conclusion. Adam (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My own preference, lest I be accused of picking on Alatari, is actually for option 4b. But if anyone asks me to explain why, I'm likely to just shrug my shoulders. I don't think that Wikipedia policy answers this question unambiguously, but Wikipedia policy is not something I'm deeply immersed in, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can make a persuasive argument otherwise.

The question is unambiguously dealt with at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)#Disambiguation. Since other schools can be ambiguously referred to as University of Missouri the city name is to be added after the main title.

The very same Wikipedia page states that:

School article titles should use the full official name of the school as provided by the school itself, unless the most common name for the school is significantly more well known than the official name. (emph. added)

So the policy hardly seems unambiguous. Whether "University of Missouri" is significantly more well known than the official name is one of the things we are interested in establishing. Adam (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see the official statement by the Board of Curators: The University of Missouri, which refers to the institution, in all of its parts, persons, property and relationships wherever situated, owned, operated, controlled, managed or otherwise regulated, is under the supervision or direction of The Board of Curators of the University of Missouri. Alatari (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How does this obscure page from the UM system website, which has not been reviewed in almost six months, trump the recent statement from the very same Board of Curators? If this page matters at all (it doesn't), doesn't the Board's decision on the name change carry even greater weight? Adam (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It shows the trend of name usage even by the Curator's themselves over the last 40 years. They can't erase 40 years of usage within one short month. That page is indicative of the usage trend that will have to be overcome. Alatari (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that that page is indicative of the Board's former desire to protect the "University of Missouri" name against the trend of common usage towards "University of Missouri == Mizzou". Adam (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can all agree, at the very least, that the UM Board of Curators should have its collective gubernatorially-appointed butt kicked for doing so little over the past forty years to help answer what should be an extremely simple question.  ;) Adam (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Alatari, you really can't make a good argument about POV when the Board of Curators has officially given its blessing to Mizzou to use "University of Missouri" essentially whenever they want. They even effectively took away the UM System's use of it. You make the argument that UMKC or UMSL could theoretically call themselves "University of Missouri", but the fact of the matter is they never do. Even more importantly, prior to the decision that was just made, no one was ever assigned official usage of the generic "University of Missouri" title. Not even the system. See here for the official rules and regulations on the name. Now Mizzou has been given permission to use it. No one else has. The whole point of the Board of Curators' decision was to allow for official consistency of what has forever been common usage. University of Missouri means Columbia. I agree with Adam about this all being the Board of Curators' fault for leaving (even adding?) this stupid ambiguity in the naming rules.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Again it doesn't matter what that decision states unless it effect common usage. Wikipedia policy is what matters Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)#Disambiguation and common usage in the media and at all campuses must be attributed or this article becomes only the Board of Curators POV biased. Which is why the NPOV tag has been added. Alatari (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If NPOV (with respect to the POVs of the various campuses) is the basis of your argument, can't one simply turn that argument around and claim that the title must reflect the POV of the Columbia campus, the Board of Curators, MU alumni, etc? Adam (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It must represent all POV's read WP:NPOV Theirs is one POV and is already represented. The other POV's aren't being represented for the UMSL and UMKC campuses and the names on the thousands of diplomas passed out. Alatari (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But if the POV dispute concerns only the title of the article, does that mean we need to cram all POVs into the article title itself? University of Missouri, a.k.a. Unviersity of Missouri-Columbia? Adam (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)