Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:46, 9 November 2014

	Michigan State University is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 21, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 31, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 20, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted February 16, 2007 Featured topic candidate Promoted May 1, 2007 Featured topic removal candidate Kept January 12, 2008 Featured topic removal candidate Demoted January 31, 2008 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Michigan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 12, 2010, February 12, 2011, and February 12, 2013.

Archives
December 2005 January 2006 – November 2006 December 2006 – February 2008

Template:V0.5

Introduction Issues

The following statement: has no business in an encyclopedia article. First of all, "it is considered" doesn't mean anything. Second of all, Michigan State is not on par with schools like Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, UCLA, Berkeley, Washington...sorry MSU, you're just not that. I realize some guy wrote a book where he included half the public schools in the country on this list, but it doesn't belong here. MSU is a great school, but the introduction sounds like it was written by the university's PR department and it cherry picks from all available "rankings" of MSU. I nominate that sentence for removal and the paragraph for a bit of "neutralization."Tjm402 (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree and VOTE AGAINST Tjm402’s proposal and that the statement that MSU is recognized as a Public Ivy should REMAIN. Your claim the statement is non-neutral and, somehow, booster-ism is totally specious given the fact that the statement is fully attributed and footnoted. Fact is, whether you with the Greene Brother’s several-years-old Green Guide, it is a mass-market book and widely recognized by academics and the public alike as singling out the top flagship state universities of America – MSU happens to be among them. Just because you don’t like the Greenes’ conclusion, doesn’t mean we should kneel to your wishes and take it out. Fact is, a number of colleges use the “Public Ivy” reference, and some don’t even bother to attribute it as the Michigan State article did. Your comment that MSU “isn’t that” in reference to schools, you believe, are a league above MSU reveals (to me, at least) you have an anti-MSU agenda and not some desire for objectivity in the article.69.249.236.166 (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To whomever writes above from IP 69.249.236.166: First of all, I have no "anti-MSU" agenda. I have been researching graduate schools, and the introduction that I discuss above struck me as I described it - sounding like it was written by MSU public relations folks or something - and not as objective and encyclopedic. I expressed my voice, as is done here often, and don't expect anyone to "kneel to my wishes." I just find it kinda ridiculous that half the public schools in America with any kind of notoriety are now labeled "public ivies." While my "anti-MSU" agenda exists only in your head, it is clear that you have a pro-MSU agenda and are either a student or alumni. When these articles are written by students and alumni of the school in question, they often lack objectivity and aren't helpful to people trying to do comparative research. All I'm saying is that the introduction sounds subjective and not befitting a reference text, and I reiterate my assertion that is a meaningless statement. If you want to say "The Greene Brothers guide regards MSU as one of America's Public Ivies," then you might have an argument as to the validity of the statement's inclusion but it won't change my claim that the tone in parts of the article is fundamentally biased and clearly written by affiliates. You can cite and attribute all you want, but if you cherry-pick your references that doesn't make something objective and neutral. And if you want to think that MSU carries the same weight in academic circles as Virginia or Michigan or Wisconsin or Berkeley - well you are entitled to do so but those rankings you seem to esteem so highly when you're cherry picking them in your favor would disagree with you there. But that is beside the point. Tjm402 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alumni cleanup

1. why is MSU the only college that requires a reference link for each alumnus? It is easy for anyone to check out the authenticity of each alumnus (or would be alumnus) listed. All this does is cut down on the number of famous alumni listed for MSU; way below what it should be and makes MSU look bad. Whoever came up with this idea (lovelac7 ?) it’s just plain goofy. 2. Athlete-alumni, on the other hand, are WAY over represented. Why, for example, should Eric Snow, who’s a career NBA back-bencher with several teams, be listed and famous people like Gloria Santona (McDonald’s general counsel), Scot Bales (AZ supreme court justice) or Charles E. St. John (famous early 20th Century physicist) not be listed!

Let’s get our priorities straight, people! … lovelac7… 69.249.236.166 (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

3.Another question - who is this extra in the movie mentioned in the middle of a bunch of famous people? nathan hall was an extra in a movie? why is this in the article? 212.12.146.156 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on #3. Appears to be a vanity edit where editors add themselves or their friends. I have removed the movie extra as not notable. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As for #1, I think a mix of both would be good, because it makes the page visibly appealing with an organized reference list on Misplaced Pages, but the page certainly requires mention of other Misplaced Pages page-less alumni. Sucherju (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose to merge Associated Students of Michigan State University, which is the MSU student government, into the Student Life section of this article. Once the unsourced facts and original research are removed, there will not be enough to sustain an article. Therefore, I propose that the remaining information is merged into this article.--RedShiftPA (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. As a former vice-chairperson in ASMSU, I was proud to write this article. Four years later, the article has gone nowhere. I've looked around for independet (non-MSU) sources for the ASMSU article, and so far I've found nothing. Though it saddens me personally, ASMSU is just not notable enough for Misplaced Pages. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support a merger into the main MSU article. I also think we ought to delete/merge/redirect most other student government articles, as well. Lovelac7 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge Complete I incorporated as much as I thought I could from the original article into the ASMSU section here. I brought the logo, links, and refs. I think this works much better than separate articles.--RedShiftPA (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: the old version of ASMSU article had a lot of good WP:OR that may be useful to members of the ASMSU community for historical purposes, even though it is not appropriate for wikipedia. You can find it here:

Cleanup suggestions

From an outsiders standpoint this article is becoming very long, I suggest the following changes:

1) Remove the three sections on football, basketball, and hockey and replace them with links to separate pages under the "athletics" heading.

2) Remove the list of "famous alumni" and replace it with a link to a list.

3) Remove the 19/20/21st century famous people and merge it with #3

4) Remove the years MSU won titles from the introduction, most people want basic information (name, location, program, brief history) in the introduction not a sports resume.

5) Update the endowment link, seems to be a few years old.

24.233.142.246 (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hannah statue.jpg

The image Image:Hannah statue.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --10:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)i love the sports i also love zach randolph

question

Which spartan appears in this photo:

reply on my talk page please - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 22:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Judging from and , I'd say it's Javon Ringer. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mugabe Stripped of MSU degree: Citation

I assume that a local television report confirms it, but here (http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/28302079.html) confirms that on September 12, 2008 Mugabe was stripped of his honorary degree for human rights abuses. Mizunori (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, I have added a ref. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Organization and administration section

I note that this article doesn't appear to have any section dedicated to describing the organization and administration of the university. Per WP:UNIGUIDE, might we devote some space for the structure of the administration, current leadership, budget, relationship with a board of trustees, formal affiliations or relationships with other universities in Michigan, student and faculty government, endowment information, academic divisions of the college/university, membership in major consortium or other inter-university organizations, etc.? Some of this information appears to be haphazardly spread through sections like history, academics, and colleges. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

MSU's Endowment

The NACUBO list Michigan State Universty(#52) and Michigan State University Foundation(#169) in their rankings I'm not making this number up out of thin air. More over even in MSU's own budget documents they combine the two go to page 108 Endowment Assets at Market Value http://dev.opb.msu.edu/msuinfo/documents/dataDigest.pdf St8fan (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that NACUBO doesn't add the two values together so I'm very leery of Misplaced Pages editors doing so. Endowments are much more complicated than many people realize and that's why we generally rely on the experts at NACUBO to do the hard work, heavy lifting, and original research. ElKevbo (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but MSU's Office of Planning and Budgets does and if anyone is informed about the schools endowment they are, if MSU sees them as one I'm inclined to use the MSU's own numbers.St8fan (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with six cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Michigan state museum

Any editors of this article near MSU? I am looking for a photo of a fossil in the MSU museum. Contact via user talk and I will coordinate. Thanks! Go Spartans!TCO (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Professor Penn matter

The recorded video of Professor William Penn in his class in September 2013 has received a lot of media attention. It has also received the attention of the President and Trustees of the University. To omit the subject would leave the reader of the article, particularly alumni and potential students and parents, with an incomplete picture of the school. My suggested addition includes both primary and secondary source material. It includes a link to a copy of the actual video of Professor Penn and video from a Trustee's meeting. It also includes secondary source material showing the nationwide attention this matter has received. I also think, imho, that the description I wrote was factually supported and took a neutral point of view. I propose that my revision 573514710 (same as 573448050) be reintroduced, unless someone else wants to suggest an alternative draft. 18 September 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.237.50 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If the topic has received significant coverage then it may be appropriate to include it in this article. However, the extent to which it is discussed in this article needs to be balanced against the importance of the topic to the overall topic of this article. In other words, a recent event like this may merit a sentence or two but probably no more in an article summarizing the entire history, organization, and contributions of one of the largest universities in the world. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the extent of the description should reflect it's relationship to the article as a whole. I believe, imho, that the description I wrote is appropriate by this measure as well. It includes just three relatively short sentences. Also, a quick Web search shows that many national media channels picked up the story. 98.248.237.50 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dp76764, here is where you can discuss this topic. Please do not just remove the material ignoring the discussion, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. If you are concerned with the length, please suggest alternatives. 98.248.237.50 (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a classic case of recentism and a politically-motivated media coverage that should be removed. It's unclear how this episode bears at all on the university as a whole since MSU has taken no actions nor is it apparent how this is historically notable for the university. The content should be moved to Penn's article. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Do a Web search of "Michigan State Professor." The Penn matter dominates the results, with links to the Detroit Free Press, Huffington Post, CBS News, the Daily Caller, the Los Angeles Times, Fox News, the Washington Times, USA Today, ABC News, Business Insider, etc. This matter now has a greater impact on public perception of the University than much/most of the other material discussed on the extensive Misplaced Pages page. It'll be at least a decade, likely more, before this fades from the public perception of Michigan State. The official actions and inactions of the University, and MSU did take actions despite the statement above otherwise, will be remembered. To fail to include it cheapens the value of the article and Misplaced Pages as a source of information about MSU and other topics. 98.248.237.50 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Who made the determination that this event had a greater impact on the perception of MSU? It doesn't say that in the source does it? Madcoverboy has a point. There's talk that Prof. Penn was setup. The student who taped him uploaded the video to the Campus Reform channel of YouTube. Last year Dr. Darry Sragow at USC experienced a similar event. A student at USC taped him calling republicans “old, white, racist, and ‘losers" and uploaded it to the Campus Reform channel on YouTube. The USC article doesn't even mention the incident. Some feel the only reason this garnered attention is because Mitt Romney's older brother is a former MSU trustee and currently sits on the board of MSU’s law school.Dkspartan1 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else want to try a draft in 3-4 sentences? Leaving out this widely covered topic will give the appearance of selective coverage of material and partisanship to this article and Misplaced Pages as a whole. If no one else is willing to try a draft, I'll look back at the earlier revision and reinstate as it seems appropriate given comments here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.237.50 (talk • contribs) 15:09, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to draft up, much less 3-4 sentences. There's no selective coverage going on here and we don't cover everything that's in the news. Instead we appear to have a politically motivated fauxtroversy that is attempting to paint this incident as representative of the university as a whole, which is not borne out by any of the facts about the incident. This is is a matter about Professor Penn, not MSU, and the content should remain on his article, not this one. I remain strongly opposed to the inclusion of any content because it has no bearing on the university, has no enduring historical significance, and Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for settling partisan scores. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Unregistered editor, you're welcome to draft something and post it here for others to comment on but I am very skeptical that you can find evidence that this event is of lasting importance and belongs in this encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Controversies Section

I have removed this recent addition to the article. Instead of using a controversy section, we incorporate the info in the body of the article. In addition, I don't think this belongs in the article see WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Dkspartan1 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dkspartan1 again. Could you be more specific about what part of WP:RECENTISM this violates? In a historic occurrence, Michigan was named by the president of the United States as part of a 55 university list (never done before in the 30 or so years of TITLE IX or the longer history of OCR) that were under investigation for the mishandling of sexual violence. The historicity has passed the muster on Wiki-review for its own article. As for undue weight, I'd like to also hear why you think this is given undue weight in the article? It has met consensus to be added at WT:UNI, so please feel free to help move it etc., but please do not delete properly sourced and well written content from Misplaced Pages. Thebrycepeake (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

According to here here and here . You never reached consensus. Just because it passed review for it's own article, doesn't mean it should go here. Several editors disagreed with you using a controversy category. If anything, the consensus was to work the info into the body of the article. In the overall history of this university, you think one investigation deserves it's own category (just MSU, not the overall investigation that will become the new article)? An investigation (of MSU) is not a historic event, they happen all the time. Several editors disagreed with you on this point as well. Did you address those issues? If anything, the only mention in this article should be a link in the see also section to the new article. If the investigation leads to something, then it should be included in the article. It's WP:RECENTISM because we don't know if it will remain notable over time (for the university, not the overall investigation). The investigation ordered for all those schools is one thing, the investigations of the schools individually as a result of that, is another.Dkspartan1 (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dkspartan1 are also welcome to adding more information to the article about previous investigations at MSU ("The OCR also explained that the previously identified Title IX investigations at Michigan State University and Wittenburg University were connected to not one but two complaints." at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/28/education-department-investigations-title-ix_n_5400345.html). As I mentioned, you can't just remove the information because WP:DONOTLIKE; it is well sourced, from reliable sources, and people agreed that it belonged in the article (as you yourself even said). I would not have undone your edits had you just moved the information into the body of the article, but as it stands you're removing reliably cited information that you argue is WP:RECENTISM, despite both the history of violating federal policies regarding campus sexual violence at MSU (they were fined in 2010 for Clery violations) and MSU's countless references to their committment to a campus safe from sexual violence. Thebrycepeake (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, make sure you tag people in talk page posts, otherwise they might not see what you've written here, which is what happened in this instance. Thebrycepeake (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What's so hard for you to understand? You have not proved there is consensus. It's up to you to prove it. You keep adding a controversy section when based on the links I provided, there is no consensus for it. Then you want me to work it into the article? Newsflash, I'm not here to do YOUR WORK FOR YOU. A couple of editors may be for it's inclusion, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are some who are against it. People who know how to edit would take that as a sign to bring the discussion to this talk page and gain consensus here. Have you done that? 2601:4:1500:C90:F4D1:ED24:48D7:29B2 (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's no longer a controversy section and you still delete properly sourced content. This is simple censorship and whitewashing. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Assault Investigation

There are numerous problems with this information:

1. How significant is this investigation? This is not a historic event. This investigation is no different than any of the previous Title IX investigations the OCR has done on this university. Those investigations are not in the article. Numerous schools have been investigated for Title IX violations in the past, can you provide a wiki article of a university where a previous Title IX investigation is listed? Harvard Law School and Yale University had Title IX investigations in 2011. That info wasn't included in their articles until after the investigation was complete, and only because they where found to be in violation. The fact that they are being investigated isn't notable. I'm not the only who thinks this info shouldn't be in the article. This discussion . is about whether or not it should be in the lead, but it also touches on the topic of not including this info in a universities article at all. Do we know what the lasting effects of this investigation are? No, we don't that's why I consider it WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE.

2. Controversy/Sexual Assault section

In the 150 year history of this university, the mere announcement of an investigation deserves it's own section? Why? Please see this discussion about the topic. The announcement of this investigation is getting it's own section, yet previous investigations aren't mentioned at all in this article? Previous investigations of other universities aren't mentioned in their respective articles? And people think concerns about WP:UNDUE are a BS argument? How?

3. The only reason some are trying to add this info in the article is because the OCR changed their policy about announcing schools that are under investigation. Previously, they would only confirm an investigation if they where asked if there was one. Please see discussion here

I'm happy to include the info in the article when discussion of those points are complete.2601:4:1500:C90:AD64:FF25:BFFC:475A (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's buying your arguments, and consensus is against you. Stop the edit warring and move on. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying nobody buying the argument isn't going to cut it. I provided you with proof that other editors disagree with putting it in the article all together. But instead of trying to discuss the issue, you just bully your way through it without providing answers to my simple questions. The original poster created a controversy section in the University of Michigan article for this info. It was promptly removed and the information relocated to the history section of the article with no objection. Then why would there be an attempt to include a new section for the info in this article when they had that knowledge? Why would other editors like yourself not notice that when I provided you with the information?2601:4:1500:C90:F8D0:E012:6115:9C1B (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being moved to the history section as a subsection. Unfortunately your attempt to do so also included a deceptive edit summary. You were called on that and the full content was restored, but your partial content was left in place. That was likely an oversight. I'll go ahead and fix it all properly.

Also, remember to log in. You were warned about this. Even unintentional sock puppetry is still sock puppetry, and that will get you in trouble. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

He's right, this should come out entirely. Its not noteable. Its also rather misleading since "investigation" in this case seems to consist of nothing more than being included on a list in a press release. The editor's failure to log his edit properly is not a reason for the content to stay in, and the warning he was given is excessive.

Djcheburashka (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Higher education articles
• WikiProject Higher education articles
• FA-Class Michigan articles
• High-importance Michigan articles
• WikiProject Michigan articles
• Selected anniversaries (February 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2013)