Jump to content

Talk:University of Mississippi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

mass grave

"Soldiers who died in the campus hospital were buried in a mass grave located at the northeast corner of the Coliseum." Aren't the graves just south of the Coliseum? The only thing northeast is a parking lot. Surely I'm missing something. And isn't the Coliseum round, i.e. lacking corners?

24.170.12.81 06:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)jt


largest university

Miss. universities show enrollment jump for 11th straight year Associated Press JACKSON, Miss. - New numbers released by the state College Board show total enrollment is up slightly at Mississippi's eight public universities this fall.

The rise of 0.4 percent marks the 11th year in a row the state's universities have increased their student numbers. Just under 70,000 students attend the schools.

The University of Southern Mississippi lost about 1,000 students after Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. This fall, it has almost rebounded to pre-Katrina levels.

"We thought it would be a two or three year process," said Joe Paul, USMs vice president for student affairs. "But weve virtually done it all in one year."

Mississippi State University remains the state's largest school, according to the numbers released this week. Mississippi University for Women saw the largest percentage increase.


removed items

The highest graduation rate among football players is true. Check out Ole Miss's website...

The list of chancellors really doesn't need a seperate page, or at least I don't see a rationale for it. Ttownfeen 18:34, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

The University is the home of a number of research centers. That's awfully vague.

The University is home to one of 10 commercially licensed Radio Stations in the nation--WUMS 92.1 Rebel Radio. There's obviously some missing modifier in that sentence. Ttownfeen 19:39, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

At the time, it was one of only 10 universities with a commerically licensed Radio Station. However I don't know now... the last date I saw that was 96-97

What's It Mean?

I may have missed it, but I could not find what the name "Ole Miss" signifies. Surely it must have a meaning? WikiSceptic 15:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

the name "ole miss" derives from the university's yearbook, which has always been officially named "the ole miss," as in "the old mississippi," a reference to the past that much of the university has always held on to.

The "Ole Miss" was the name house servents used when referring to the Mistress of the house. The University is seen as the grand mistress of Mississippi by both alumni and friends of the University. The previous writer does not know what he is talking about, though Ole Miss is the name of the Annual it is not the origin of that name. I would dare say he is not an alumni. Eddie Cunningham-BBA-1970

The term "ole" has origins in mid 19th century and represents a folk pronunciation of the term "old." It is commonly used in rural american circles, especially in the Southeast United States, to show an informal affection or as a term of endearment for something or someone. Examples are the terms "Ole Virginny" for Virginia, "Ole St. Nick" for Santa Claus, "Good ol' boy" for an endeared male, etc. The term "Miss" continues to be the standard abbreviation for Mississippi, after being established by the United States Government Printing Office in the mid 1800s. It was used as the postal abbreviation until being officially replaced by the two letter "MS" in 1963. Considering a yearbook is considered an historical perspective on a students life at a school, it is quite understandable why this term was chosen. The questionable assertion that Ole Miss was chosen to refer to what slave called the old lady of a plantation is without merit or reference. It is merely a unintentional homonym, at best.

Entry about difference between "Ole Miss" and University of Mississippi

This quotation from an alumnus is purely sentimental and conveys no meaning. It does not belong in an encyclopedia entry.

Race relations

There is hardly any mention of race relations, and no mention of James Meridith or the informal use of the Confederate battle flag as a school symbol.

That is probably because race is not an issue at Ole Miss these days, even though many outsiders-- especially the rivals of Ole Miss-- would like it to be.

The University disassociated itself from the Confederate flag in 1984. It is not an "informal" symbol of the school, and the flag is never seen in the football stadium.

If race is no issue, then surely James Meredith, desegregation, and the violence surrounding it, should be included in the history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.200.252.2 (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it should. So add it, with sources. And be sure to present both sides or else you risk violating WP:NPOV. Acutally, there is a section already there. You missed it? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Larry Brown

The "Larry Brown" link misdirects you to a page on the basketball coach, not the Mississippi author. Could someone fix this, please? I don't know how. Thanks.

Done. —DO'Neil 03:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Crimson for Harvard and Blue for Yale??

Is there a citation for this? It sounds too pretentious and delusional to be true.

i'm not sure where to find a citation for that, but i am a student at u of m, and pretension and delusion are quite the norm here, and i have heard this from many sources myself...but it has always seemed quite strange...

Harvard/Yale Citations

Here are some citations for the harvard/yale colors:

http://www.alumni.olemiss.edu/museum/decade1890.asp
http://cedar.olemiss.edu/depts/graduate_school/facts.html
Saxmanb 20:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Notable Alumni Addition

I've added Shepard Smith to the notable alumni. According to the wikipedia definition of alumnus, Smith qualifies. He never graduated from Ole Miss, but did attend there. Saxmanb 20:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


ACT scores

The average ACT scores among entering Ole Miss freshmen typically ranks second among public universities in the state behind neighboring Mississippi State University.

This statement needs a citation or needs to be removed.

I do not know who would be interested in updating this fact but the source would be the Mississippi Institute of Higher Learning. All of the comparative data for the Mississippi public colleges is located there, but would require a little bit of digging for whoever wants to do it. The website is [1] MUW Fan 15:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I dug up the info on the IHL website and put it under the "Facts" section. I rephrased the above statement that someone else had removed, because it appears to hold true only for 2006. Terence7 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

act scores removed

Act scores removed from facts section because they do not fit into a section on near-trivia. Act scores would fit into accolades, but as Ole Miss is not first in the state with ACT scores there's no need to mention second place. Enjoybeta 04:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The point of this article is not to list accolades (although a 23.0 average and second in the state seems respectable to me) but to convey useful and relevant information about the school. The average standardized test score of entering freshmen last year is certainly relevant information about any college or university. If you want to put this information elsewhere in the article, or reorganize the article so there doesn't need to be a section listing random facts, that is fine.
P.S. I am an Ole Miss fan, for what it's worth. Terence7 04:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It's just that mentioning the entering class in a trivia section feels out of place to me. I also agree that the trivia section needs to be removed but it's difficult to do without removing the interesting facts within. If you feel strongly about this though, I'll concede and won't revert it. Enjoybeta 04:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
How about this: I'm renaming the Accolades section to Academics (because that's what all of those facts are about) and I'll put the average ACT score in that section. Ideally, the Academics section would be expanded into paragraph form, and the Facts section would be worked into the rest of the article, but we can save that for later. Terence7 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. I liked the other changes as well. Enjoybeta 07:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Olemisslogo.png

Image:Olemisslogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Leonard McCoy is a notable alumni?

I do not think it is fair to describe Leonard McCoy, chief medical officer of the USS Enterprise under Captain James T. Kirk as a notable alumni. It is a fictive person. I therefore recommend to remove him from the list of notable alumni. RaF

Fair use rationale for Image:Thedailymississippian.png

Image:Thedailymississippian.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

There seems to be an 80 year gap in the timeline from the post-civil war presidency to rioting during the civil rights era of the 1960's. Surely something must have taken place. Why is this not included? Vdrj2 17:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Because no one has included it. If you know it and have reliable references and sources, add it! -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Presidential Debates

Ole Miss was chosen as the university to host the first of three presidential debates on September 26, 2007. Surely this information should be added to the article, but where?? TimelessWind88 (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been added under the Facts section. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI to current and former students

Please see Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) and add yourself by placing the userbox on your WikiPedia page. -- ALLSTARecho 02:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ole Miss/plantation owner

While the first cite I removed didn't appear to support the assertion that this was the source of the nickname, the Sesquicentennial History connects the dots fairly explicitly. I think it can stay on the article now -- other opinions?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"The University of Mississippi: A Sesquicentennial History" by Sansing (1999) does not state this is why Elma Meek chose the name. Additionally, the sentence mentioning this goes unreferenced and unsupported with any further writing. Sansing (1999) states the following, "In 1897 the Greek societies established a college yearbook, which they titled Ole Miss, a name suggested by Elma Meek, a student from Oxford. The term "Ole Miss" was a title domestic slaves in the Old South used to distinguish the mistress of the plantation house from the young misses of the family" (p. 168). This statement has been the basis of the claim "Ole Miss" was chosen due to slave connotations ever since, appearing in numerous newspaper articles and books after this one was published. To this day, there is no definitive proof Elma Meek chose this name because of this connotation. In fact, the term "ole" is a folksy term commonly used in the middle nineteenth-century to show reflective endearment, as per the New Oxford American Dictionary. The abbreviation "Miss." was the official government and postal abbreviation for the state from the mid 1800s until 1963, when the two character convention was accepted. With these facts in mind and no record of her actual opinion, it is reasonable the name had nothing to do with slavery connotations and is only an inadvertent homonym. Personally, I find it hard to believe a student would want to refer to a university as if it were her slave mistress. There is no endearment in that idea, and endearment is the university's stated purpose behind the nickname. 89.211.58.141 (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Really, the ultimate origin is unknown." statement by Dr. Charles Eagles, William F. Winter Professor of History at the University of Mississippi, on the Massachusetts School of Law's "Books of Our Time" broadcast series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.216.41 (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And if you continue listening he then offers his professional opinion on the most likely explanation given the available evidence. That's how history works - you put together the best available evidence to create the most likely explanation or account of events. Dr. Winter is eminently qualified to offer his professional opinion on this topic and he has done so not only in that video but presumably in the book about which was speaking. That he holds an endowed chair at the University of Mississippi strengthens his claims considerably since he (a) presumably has excellent access to the institution's archives and the resources of the local area and (b) is very unlikely to be making this claim with an interest to hurt or besmirch the university.
I'm sorry if it bothers you that this institution has deep historical roots in prejudice and slavery. But that's the university's history, good or bad, and it should be included in this encyclopedia article and not hidden or erased. ElKevbo (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, something being "likely" does not equal a verifiable fact. The original yearbook is on display in the library and there are dedications to Ms. Elma Meek in other yearbooks, as well. All support the official university stand and none say anything about it being related to a slave term. Wikipedia content must not be original research and offer a neutral point of view. Saying that Ole Miss is something "likely" against the verifiable citation from official University website is against the terms and purpose of Wikipedia. Specifically listed: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.216.41 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you misunderstand (a) Wikipedia's practices related to edit warring and conflict resolution, (b) Wikipedia's policy related to original research, and (c) the academic discipline of history. The university's self-serving denial of its roots in slavery are no excuse to whitewash the article by omitting the work of professional historians.
Given the specific nature of this material and your insistence on it being censored, I can't help but wonder if you have a particular interest in this subject. Can you please clarify if you have a bias or conflict of interest? ElKevbo (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement in question represents on opinion as a certain and verifiable fact. This goes against Wikipedia's neutrality tenet, one of the three basic tenets of Wikipedia. Additionally, Dr. Eagles never suggests slaves were forced to use a term, but that the term "ol' missus" is eye dialect. To say they were forced is also misleading from this reference. This is the reason I am removing it: it misrepresents opinion as fact, and is against Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.216.41 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you be ok if the assertion were attributed and did not use the word "forced?" ElKevbo (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I would still not support the assertion with only the term "forced" removed. It is still not a verifiable fact and not encyclopedic. The certainty is "Ole Miss" was Ms. Elma Meeks' idea, and her reasons for that idea are unknown. To assert she derived the term from another without a citation from her or her estate is supposition, not fact. Due of the nature of the term, it could be seen as somewhat slanderous. Additionally, I understand "Ole Miss" is a little homonymic to "ol' missus," but that does not constitute etymology. To assert so is misleading. In the end, the statement in question is not a neutral statement. However, I believe this is something that should remain on the discussion or talk pages.(66.8.216.41 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC))
The professional opinion of a tenured historian is notable; your opinion is not. Your censorship of this article will not be tolerated. ElKevbo (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(unident) Just so we're all clear, here is the specific passage from Dr. Eagles's book "The Price of Defiance: James Meredith and the Integration of Ole Miss:"

When students in 1897 named their new yearbook Ole Miss, they began the university's long association with the term. According to tradition, the name had two possible derivations. One suggested that Miss was simply the diminutive name for Mississippi, whole Ole referred to the antebellum and Confederate periods. A more likely explanation claimed that it came "from darkey dialect." [emphasis added] Previously, the shortened phrase referred to the "Old Mistress," the name slaves used for the wife of the antebellum southern planter. It captured the "beauty of the tender affection of the slaves for the gracious ministrations of their owners" and "the glamorous days when the lovely lady...within the sphere of her domain reigned supreme. Therefore, the term 'Ole Miss' is one which is redolent of the romance, the chivalry, the beauty, the culture, the graciousness and the finish traditions of the Southland." It again conjured up "the love and all the wonderful incidents thereof inspired in the hears of those to whom 'Ole Miss' ministered in the slave days."

Dr. Eagles cites a 1932 article from the Ole Miss Alumni News and a 1939 article as a footnote for this paragraph.

According to the author's webpage, the book won several awards, including the McLemore Prize from the Mississippi Historical Society for the best Mississippi history book in 2009, the 2010 Mississippi Institute of Arts and Letters Award for nonfiction, and the 2010 Lillian Smith Award in non-fiction. The university was also not shy about trumpeting these awards.

This, of course, is in addition to the clear statement above from Sansing's 1999 book "The University of Mississippi: A Sesquicentennial History." So you're expecting us to believe that your opinion is more important and trustworthy than these sources, at least one of which (a) was written by a historian with impeccable credentials, (b) was peer reviewed and published by a university press, and (c) received multiple awards, including awards from regional historical societies? That strains credulity and is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. ElKevbo (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am agreeing with you that the derivation is unknown, just as Dr. Eagles says. If you wish to state, "The etymology of the term Ole Miss is uncertain," then that would be factual and neutral. There may be opinions from people with impressive credentials, but these opinions are still not fact. For example, Dr. Sansing's statement in his book has no citation or reference. That's because they are opinions, therefore may be biased and are not neutral. Wikipedia's neutrality tenet says do not treat opinion as fact. The goal is to be encyclopedic. It would be different if you had a citation from Elma Meek or the 1897 Ole Miss editorial board, who did not state a slave mistress was the derivation in their "Raison d' Etre" in the 1897 yearbook. I am not stating an opinion, just that the statement that was deleted was not neutral. Neutrality is the reason I stand by the deletion.(66.8.216.41 (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC))
No, the correct claim would be something like: "Official university sources state that the nickname "Ole Miss" comes from... However, other sources authored by professional historians offer an alternative explanation..." How's that?
And please, please, PLEASE read WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Information published in reliable sources is rarely open to the kind of criticism you're trying to level; if you believe it's incorrect then the proper course of action is for you to publish your criticisms and then we can cite that. And NPOV only applies to Wikipedia authors. Others are allowed to have opinions and in fact they usually should have opinions. In this instance, professionals in the field have published in reliable sources their opinion as supported by the available evidence. If we follow your recommended course of action, we'll need to go through every article on every topic and add "In the opinion of __" to everything we write. That's not how we work; it's unworkable and unreasonable. ElKevbo (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The WP:NPOV says opinions should not be presented as facts, to avoid seriously contested assertions as facts, use non-judgemental language, and accurately reflect the relative prominence of opposing views. The phrase in question was, "The name Ole Miss originated from a term of respect for a plantation owner's wife that the slaves were forced to use," without further qualification. That violates all four NPOV I listed at least and is why I deleted it. It appears you now agree the phrase is not neutral, so I hope we can move the discussion forward. However, I must assert that an opinion published in a reliable source by a reputable person is still only an opinion, and it should not be presented as a fact. It should be presented as an opinion of the author as stated in WP:RSOPINION. The facts remain Elma Meek came up with it, it won a contest for the yearbook in 1897, and was adopted as a term of endearment for the school years later. There is a copy of this book in the university library. There is a raison d’être in the book that makes no suggestion a slave term is the source of the title, and there is no further evidence from Elma Meek. Therefore, it is contestable and judgmental to now say Elma Meek stole the term from slave vernacular with such certainty. Lastly, I can tell you are determined and passionate about this subject, and I respect that, but please remain civil and know my intentions are in good faith. I am only deleting a statement that was in clear violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. (66.8.216.41 (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC))
Stop wasting our time with your misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and historiography and answer the question. ElKevbo (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What question is going unanswered? Perhaps we should seek conflict resolution.(198.228.223.130 (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC))
No, the correct claim would be something like: "Official university sources state that the nickname "Ole Miss" comes from... However, other sources authored by professional historians offer an alternative explanation..." How's that? ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. How about leave the current paragraph since that is cited and official from the university, and make an ancillary section after the mascot discussion devoted only to the relatively recent contention on the sobriquet? It needs to be proportional and provide proper weight, but cover all the information available. The university stance went uncontested for 102 years before a source offered a differing explanation, and Dr. Eagles does admit the origin is truly unknown and possibly unrelated to black jargon of the time. Thoughts? (JillPope 7 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC))
Why should the "official" explanation take precedence over the one published by eminent scholars in reliable sources? And where do you come up with the idea that the explanation "went unchallenged for 102 years?" Have you conducted a thorough review of the literature? Did you even see the sources cited above from the first half of the 20th century?? ElKevbo (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The University of Mississippi; Its first hundred years (J.A. Cabaniss, 1949) describes the inception just as the university does, and the dedication to Elma Meek in the 1945 yearbook does, too. From the 1897 yearbook to Sansing's book is 102 years, so that's where I got that and it's just demotic. As far as source material, Sansing's assertion is unreferenced, so this is considered a primary source and hard to use. Eagles is better because its a secondary source, but when he admits, "Really, the ultimate origin is unknown" and gives multiple likely origins there's too much uncertainty and opinion. In the end, it's the university's intellectual property, and the official tune that it was a just made up phrase (akin to "Mizzu" or "Wazzu") hasn't changed since it began to be used. The fact the school never used "Ole Miss" like it means a plantation wife is significant, too. For example, the university has voted for a "Miss Ole Miss" for homecoming since the 1920s. If it meant something different, why not just vote for an "Ole Miss"? Just a thought. (JillPope 7 (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC))
I suggest that a combination of the above should be possible, with something like "The etymology of the term Ole Miss is uncertain. Official university sources state that the nickname "Ole Miss" comes from... However, other sources authored by professional historians offer a potential alternative explanation...". Allens (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! ElKevbo (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Time for "Ole Miss"

Virtually everything about the University of Mississippi, including the football helmets and even the web site (www.olemiss.edu), now front the "Ole Miss" designation. Is it now time for Wikipedia to reverse the redirection from Ole Miss to University of Mississippi so that the article is titled "Ole Miss"? This change, if it occurs, has the added advantage of obviating confusion over the names of the three doctoral-granting public universities in Mississippi--Ole Miss, University of Southern Mississippi, and Mississippi State University. Rammer (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah. ElKevbo (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mascot and Nickname

The student-led effort to bring an on-field mascot back to Ole Miss ended on October 6, 2010, with the selection of the "Rebel Black Bear" concept. This was only a proposal to the university, who then turned the idea over to the athletics department for further development and eventual implementation 1. The final, official on-field mascot will not be presented until after this process is complete. Therefore, to place "Rebel Black Bear" concept as the school's mascot on the Wiki page is misleading and should be removed until it is official. It is very possible the final on-field mascot will have a different name or look that the initial concept. The name "Rebels" remains Ole Miss' official athletics nickname 2. This is similar to Purdue University who has a nickname and a mascot ("Boilermakers" and the "Boilermaker Special"), which are not one in the same 3. Ole Miss' Wiki should reflect a similar distinction once the on-field mascot is official. (89.211.58.138 (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

Enrollment figures for Ole Miss

The enrollment figures for Ole Miss listed include ALL Ole Miss campuses, yet the location listed is "Oxford". There are only about 15,800 students in Oxford at Ole Miss. Putting 19,500 as the enrollment of Ole Miss is deceptive. If that is the standard, then the University of Alabama's all-campus enrollment is 50,000. Nobody does this. There's no need to pad the stats. Ole Miss is unique because it is a smaller campus and tight knit community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.0.83 (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Relating to the enrollment figures, I know that I'm replying to an old message but the best figures to use are probably the fall figures put out by the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning. They are available here http://www.ihl.state.ms.us/ihl/newsstory.asp?ID=1254 for fall 2016. Mississippi universities typically don't have their official numbers until after the final day to drop without owing money. The University of Mississippi numbers here are presented in three ways, University of Mississippi (underlined) (24,250) for all students in the UM 'system', including the students at the UMMC institution in Jackson, A University of Mississippi number (not underlined) (21,260) which is just the Oxford, MS campus students, and then a UMMC number (2,990).Traicovn (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

We take different approaches in different articles so whichever one you decide to do here is fine as long as it's (a) clearly labeled for everyone to understand and (b) supported by high quality sources.
I also caution our colleague who tried to edit this article and the University of Southern Mississippi article earlier today to state that USM enrolls more students: Don't make a false comparison by limiting it to comparing the enrollment in one UM campus to the total enrollment of all USM campuses. That's dishonest and unethical. If you must make the comparison, it has to be a legitimate one comparing things that are, well, comparable e.g., just the two main campuses, the combined enrollments at all campuses. ElKevbo (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Largeness

The first sentence says that it is the largest university in the state while at the same time, the last sentence of the first paragraph says it second largest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.53.194 (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 1#File:Mississippi Football.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

racism at Ole Miss

I am not familiar with this subject, but maybe someone can look at the following CNN video and see what, if anything, should be included in this article, per:

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on University of Mississippi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for Flagship University Designation edit

In reference to an ongoing debate about the title, "flagship" and which university within the state of Mississippi that should carry the title — according to [Flagship#Education], "The College Board, for example, defines flagship universities as the best-known institutions in the state, noting that they were generally the first to be established and are frequently the largest and most selective, as well as the most research-intensive public universities."

While the same entry notes that state universities often self-designate themselves as the "flagship" institution, I'd like to submit the following stories for discussion that the University of Mississippi should be designated as Mississippi's flagship institution per CollegeBoard.org and the recent announcement of R-1: Doctoral Universities – Highest Research Activity by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education

RyanWhittington (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Closing this discussion, the editor who requested this edit unilaterally performed the edit one month later. Altamel (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Re-opening it. An editor removed the flagship designation today. I restored it per the College Board link above specificially designating it a Flagship university, but the other editor removed it again. Other opinions? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on University of Mississippi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Faulkner in the lead?

Should we mention Faulkner in the lead?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictures

In order to illustrate Frank P. Gates, could someone please upload pictures of (Old) University High School, Barr Hall, Bondurant Hall, Farley Hall (also known as Lamar Hall), Faulkner Hall, Hill Hall, Howry Hall, Isom Hall, Longstreet Hall, Martindale Hall, Vardaman Hall, the Cafeteria/Union Building, and the Wesley Knight Field House on Wikimedia Commons please?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677:Not sure if you can help with this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I am on campus and can help with these (I am sitting in Lamar Hall right now). You may wish to check here, too. Lyceum–The Circle Historic District I will notify you on your user page. Bob Cummings (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Please ping me when you have taken and uploaded them!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on University of Mississippi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead

BobCummings - please express your concerns regarding any inaccuracies introduced in the lead on this TP rather than on my user TP. Also, please read MOS:LEAD, which states that the lead is an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 21:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Atsme. I would suggest that the lead section follow the guidelines of College_and_university_article_advice and be factually correct. As it currently stands, the lead section gives WP:UNDUE to the 1962 riots; while they are certainly important to the history of the University and essential to its identity, roughly one-third of the current lead section is dedicated to this event. The current version of the lead section also contains at least one factual error, indicating that a president of another university was president of the University of Mississippi (which has never had "presidents.") I ask you to reconsider your edits. Thank you. Bob Cummings (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. The riots were not only historic, they were pivotal and it does belong in the lead. WP doesn't censor such important historic material. I fixed the error you mentioned, and updated/modified the last paragraph a bit to reflect the university's long standing commitment. Atsme📞📧 03:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits.Bob Cummings (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Only flagship or one of two?

A few editors are in disagreement about whether this university is the state's only flagship or if it's one of two flagships alongside Mississippi State University. We have at least one reliable source that includes both of these universities as flagships. Since the flagship designation is usually an informal and unregulated one, it's common for some states to have multiple universities that one or more experts have legitimately recognized as a flagship. That's the case here.

I propose that the following questions need to be answered:

1. Are there sufficient reliable sources to include in this article that the University of Mississippi is a flagship university? 2. Are there sufficient reliable sources to include in this article that Mississippi State University is a flagship university?

If the answer to both questions is "yes" then we need to include that information in both articles.

I'll notify the editors who have been involved in this discussion at both articles and also drop a note on the Mississippi State University Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

To begin, see WP policy WP:EXCEPTIONAL. There are multiple RS that support Ole Miss being the flagship - one would not be enough to substantiate such an exceptional claim. Following are the RS that support Ole Miss as flagship: CBS, Mississippi Today, U.S. News, NBC News, The Guardian, and on and on. I have requested that this article be semi-protected and will be happy to change my position if RS substantiate the exceptional claim (exceptional claims require exceptional sources) that the state has 2 flagship universities Atsme📞📧 14:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the answer to the first question ("Are there sufficient reliable sources to include in this article that the University of Mississippi is a flagship university?") is yes. So we now turn to the second question ("Are there sufficient reliable sources to include in this article that Mississippi State University is a flagship university?"). First, it's entirely plausible that more than university in a state can be considered a flagship; our own Flagship article makes this point quite well. So it's not an extraordinary claim but an ordinary one that still requires sufficient evidence.
So we're not looking to see evidence that could support the claim that "Mississippi State University is a flagship university?" We've already brought up the 2006 USA Today source which is clear but not as authoritative as a scholarly source and over a decade old. It's unsurprising that Mississippi State University itself has made the claim several times (e.g., here, and here); it appears to be or have been at some point part of their boiler plate language describing the institution. That claim is repeated at Mississippi.org, the website of the state's "lead economic and community development agency." (Amusingly, the same website has both university's claiming to be the state's flagship university; presumably the agency allowed each university to submit their own description with minimal oversight or editing.) A quick search doesn't turn up many other promising sources supporting this claim; I am omitting several unreliable ranking systems and websites that support the claim but can't be taken seriously.
I recommend letting this discussion remain open for a reasonable period of time so (a) others can participate and (b) additional evidence can be found and evaluated. ElKevbo (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Then by your own admission regarding the lack of RS, please self revert, and call an RfC if you want consensus to decide. That is a much better option than edit warring over an unverifiable claim of two flagship universities. Atsme📞📧 17:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have contributed in 2018 (other than just copy editing) and have an interest in this article (I'm not sure how IP pings work but feel free to add them if they can be pinged or if I've missed any others): Zigzig20s, Jon Kolbert, Zchrykng, L293D, Bongwarrior, PlyrStar93, SarekOfVulcan, BobCummings Atsme📞📧 17:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to the conversation. I believe that this is a question of definition, i.e., (a) which definition of “flagship” applies, and (b) does the institution meet that definition?
(a) which definition of flagship applies. In the discussion above, there are several definitions of “flagship” offered. The Wikipedia entry, definitions used by the College Board (and other institutions which reference an institution as flagship, such as the US Department of Education, Standard and Poor’s, state higher education agencies, etc.). I would offer that we also ought to consider any definitions offered by Wikiproject Universities; I searched there and did not find any. Thus, the first question is to determine which of these several (or others yet to be identified) definitions of flagship should be used. I have looked at several discussions about the use of flagship on talk pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brigham_Young_University/Archive_2#Flagshiphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brigham_Young_University/Archive_3#De_facto_Flagship?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brigham_Young_University/Archive_3#Flagship_issue_at_BYUhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Association_of_American_Universities#"Flagships"_etc.and most of them reference the Wikipedia entry on the term flagship to attempt to clear up disputes. Therefore, it would seem in keeping with current practice to apply the definition of flagship as laid out in the Wikipedia entry on Flagship.The entry on flagship makes it clear that while the term has several common features (best-known institution in a state, oldest institution in the state, public institution, largest institution in the state, most selective institution in the state, most research-intensive university in the state), it does not offer one clear definition for flagship.It does also not indicate if any of these characteristics are exclusive, i.e., if an institution is not public, it cannot be a flagship.The entry also makes it plain that more than one institution can claim the term flagship.
(b) does the institution meet the definition Since there is no clear definition of flagship, and more than one institution can claim to be flagship, I would conclude that as long as the institution itself claims the title of flagship, then it is due the title. I could imagine that a state agency might weigh in and make an official designation of flagship, but as far as I can tell, this is not the case in Mississippi. Further, I would suggest that the lead be reworded to mention that the University is one of two universities in the state to claim flagship status, and that the other institution (Mississippi State University) be mentioned in a footnote to that statement. I would suggest a similar wording for the Mississippi State University article. My reasoning is that each article should be dedicated to describing its subject, and that introducing the title of another subject so early in the lead section shifts the attention away from the primary subject.
Thanks again for inviting me to the conversation. Bob Cummings (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Casualty misuse

The History section conflates the 100% casualty rate among the University Greys with a 100% fatality rate, which isn't accurate (a "casualty" could be wounded, captured, etc.).

Edit: replace "However, all 135 students were killed during the war, a 100% casualty rate. Most died during the battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg." with "However, the University Greys suffered a 100% casualty rate. Of those who died, most died during the battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg." 

Kieranllyons (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done The source cited did not support the prior text. i took your suggestion and combined it to come up with a new text that followed the source better. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Athletics

Hello to the fans/alumni of the University of Mississippi. Your main wikipedia article had almost no information on the athletic programs there. Instead, it consisted of a link to a separate article, which is fine, but there should be, IMO, at least a bit of general information here on the main page. I snooped around the web and got a few referenced additions to include, so it's a bit better now, but please, if you have any inclination to do so, consider this an invitation to edit, update, expand, etc. It's fun to edit wikipedia, so get going :) !Cellodont (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of "Ole Miss"

ElKevbo, could we resolve this issue through discussion and consensus on this talk page before undoing longstanding status quo? ~ HAL333 19:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources cited in this article make it clear that the "Ole Miss" nickname is racist in origin. We must include it in the article in many places where it's still in use and where we discuss the history of the term. But there is no reason for us to propagate the nickname in our own writing when there are alternatives that are clear and meaningful e.g., "the University of Mississippi," "the university." ElKevbo (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Regardless of the harm or offense that "Ole Miss" may cause, this is what the university calls itself: it is is the url of their website (https://olemiss.edu) and is used prominently in marketing and branding (e.g. Ole Miss Rebels football). Please note that reliable sources—such as The New York Times in 2018 and The Washinton Post in 2020—refer to the university interchangeably as the University of Mississippi and Ole Miss. To look at precedent on other collegiate articles, we refer to Yale University and Johns Hopkins University by what these insitutions call themselves despite their names' respective association with slaveowning. Unfortunately, there is no official Wikipedia policy to support your stance here. Please stop this edit war. I do not want to have to bring you to ANI. ~ HAL333 19:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I would welcome further input from other editors about why you insist on using a phrase with origins in slavery in situations when there is no reason whatsoever to do so. This isn't about censorship; there are places in the article where we should and must use the phrase. But there are many places where we don't have to use it and it's an editorial choice. So why are choosing to use this phrase when you don't have to and the article isn't improved by its use? ElKevbo (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
To the contrary, it would be an editorial decision to remove usage of "Ole Miss". This article's content is derived from reliable sources that do so, as I have already stated. This is not my personal stance on this issue, but Wikipedia policy. ~ HAL333 19:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You're making a deliberate, editorial decision to use the racist nickname when it's unnecessary. You can't hide that decision behind a policy. ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
And don't tell me to "stop this edit war." There was one edit conflict, there was never an edit war and there certainly isn't one that is ongoing that needs to stop. Focus on the issue at hand instead of making up other issues. ElKevbo (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I also object to this framing as a discussion about my edits when the real issue is the use of this racist nickname in the article. Please explain exactly why it's necessary that Wikipedia editors use the nickname in the article when there alternatives that preserve the meaning of the article for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If I were at the University of Mississippi, I would not use the nickname and would encourage a more formal move away from it, but I have to concur with HAL333 here. The origin of the nickname is gross, but its contemporary usage is not so racially charged as to go against WP:POLA. If the article's primary authors can find a way to write it so that it doesn't use the nickname and still flows well, they're welcome to, but we shouldn't ban the term or edit war to push it away from the status quo. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at the edits I made; I removed the nickname in the places where it wasn't essential. It's a gross mischaracterization of what I've proposed to say that I'm asking for a "ban." What I have proposed is exactly what you've written: we can write about this subject in most places without using this troubled nickname and do no harm whatsoever to the context and integrity of the article and the sources we're citing. ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You removed almost every use of the term. Currently, a quick glance (aided by the Find command) will find "Ole Miss" much more heavily used in the reference section than in the actual body. As it is, "Ole Miss" is actually used less in this article than reliable sources do in general. Until the University of Mississippi officially repudiates this byname, it will continued to be used at this (already quite conservative) frequency in the article. ~ HAL333 20:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
No, the subject of this article doesn't get to dictate its content. Where in the world did you get that idea? ElKevbo (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a tremendous precedent for referring to institutions, individuals, and organization by what they call themselves. The article for China refers to that country as the "People's Republic of China" quite often. We refer to Prince Rogers Nelson by his first name. etc. Ultimately, this is largely driven by reliable sources repeating what these entities call themselves. Although I have no crystal ball, I expect that reliable sources would not refer to the University of Mississippi as "Ole Miss" if the university officially discarded that name. But as long as the majority of highly reliable sources like the New York Times (as they did in the body, let alone the title, of this recent article) use the byname "Ole Miss", it is appropriate per Wikipedia policy to also use it in this article. ~ HAL333 20:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You're absolutely right - we should blindly follow the lead of others who use racist phrases and we have no choice or agency ourselves. Why bother using neutral phrases that convey the exact same meaning to readers when instead we can choose to live in the past? Ethics should play no role in our decisions and we should disregard the people we cite in this very article who say otherwise. ElKevbo (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
HAL333, please explain your objection to this edit. The lede is supposed to summarize the contents of the article. Omitting the controversy and history of this term does a grave disservice to our readers as the sources already summarized and cited in the article demonstrate. Moreover, why do you insist on using the word "byname" in the lede? ElKevbo (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The issue is currently under discussion and it was unwise to readd it. When your bold edit is reverted, you should discuss, not rerevert. Please don't do that again. The lede already devotes an entire paragraph to the controversy regarding the university, and besides, the onus is on you to convince other editors and develop consensus regarding these changes. ~ HAL333 20:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
So what exactly is your objection to this specific edit? ElKevbo (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I want to reset the discussion because it got a bit personal and off-track.

The fundamental question is: When it is not necessary to preserve critical context and meaning, should we use the nickname "Ole Miss" in this article? It unambiguously has its roots in the enslavement and oppression of Black people in the United States; the cited sources make that clear. It is also clear that many reliable sources continue to use this nickname.

I firmly believe that we are not obligated to use this nickname when it is not necessary to convey critical context. We have a choice, in situations where no meaning "Ole Miss" is used solely as a shorthand for "the University of Mississippi" without any historical or cultural connotations, to use other phrases or words that convey the same meaning without any of the racist, historical baggage that it carries. When we can, we should use "the University of Mississippi" or simply "the university". We are not obligated or required to use the same nicknames that reliable sources use when that nickname conveys no useful information or context. ElKevbo (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored While I usually agree with ElKevbo on these topics, I disagree here (I disagree with his question, not necessarily on the outcome). It is not out role to decide what is "right" or "wrong" morally. As editors, we should use what the reliable sources use most often, and Ole Miss seems to be used reliably as a nickname, so we should not eliminate it. In a similar way, the Flag of Mississippi was displayed on Wikipedia, regardless of the fact it had racist ties. Eventually, the state of Mississippi changed it, but it is not up to Wiki editors to make that call.
The question isn't "should we use this nickname if it is racist?" the question is: "how to reliable sources most often refer to this institution?". I haven't done my research yet, but if RS use Ole Miss more often than the full name, then it is fine to use it. S0 while I don't necessarily agree with using Ole Miss as a standard, I do not agree with your reasoning Elkevibo. As editors, it is not in our power to make moral calls. Also, I absolutely disagree with inserting the word "controversially" in the opening sentence. The nickname can be discussed elsewhere, but most definitely not in the first sentence since the controversy is not of that relevance to deserve such a spot. Eccekevin (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
How in the world is using the university's name "censorship?" Please tell me how changing "Ole Miss" to "the university" or "the University of Mississippi" in these specific examples changes anything about the meaning of the sentence and what it's trying to convey:
From the "History" section:
  • "Chancellor Alfred Hume gave the state legislators a grand tour of Ole Miss and the surrounding historic city of Oxford, persuading them to keep it in its original setting."
  • "Desegregation came to Ole Miss in the early 1960s with the activities of United States Air Force veteran James Meredith from Kosciusko, Mississippi."
  • "While most Ole Miss students did not riot prior to his enrollment in the university, many harassed Meredith during his first two semesters on campus."
  • "In 2002, the university marked the 40th anniversary of integration with a yearlong series of events titled "Open Doors: Building on 40 Years of Opportunity in Higher Education." These included an oral history of Ole Miss, various symposiums, the April unveiling of a $130,000 memorial, and a reunion of federal marshals who had served at the campus."
From the "Campus" section:
  • "The campus has been recognized multiple years, but most recently, in 2016, USA Today recognized Ole Miss as the 'Most Beautiful Campus'."
From the "Research" section:
  • "According to the National Science Foundation, Ole Miss spent $137 million on research and development in 2018, ranking it 142nd in the nation."
What exactly do we lose in those specific sentences by not using this racist nickname? What meaning specific to "Ole Miss" do those sentence convey to readers?
And we don't cede all decisions about what we write about and how we write about to sources. Nor do we abrogate responsibility for our decisions - or decisions we evade - when we write for this encyclopedia. That is especially true when it costs us nothing to make a particular decision. We're not losing any meaning here, we're only choosing to sometimes use the institution's name instead of its nickname that is rooted in racism and slavery. We are not irrevocably bound by the decisions of others; we make our own choices when it's appropriate even if some sources disagree or make their own, different choices e.g., we choose to not deadname people although many publications do so. ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Ole Miss is the more common name, and the one currently used by the page. From the Wikipedia policy: Some articles may include images, text, or links that are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.. I understand your agreeable viewpoint, and I am sure you have good intentions, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an agent of social change for progressive causes. There is not need to police speech based on sensibility, regardless of how offensive it is. The Washington Redskins, despite their deplorable name, did not have their paged censored before the name change.
I am not arguing for or against the inclusion of any specific instance of the nick name (or of any of those instances you listed). My point is different: it should not be removed on the basis of it being perceived as offensive to some, because that is not what Wikipedia is. Eccekevin (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Then you have no objections to me changing those sentences in the article because their meaning won't change at all? ElKevbo (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I’m opposed to changes not based on policy. Your reason for changing it is that you perceive it as offensive, and that’s not a wiki policy. If the university abandons it (like the Washington Redskins or many others), yes I believe it should be removed. If not, it’s still the most common name the institution is recognized by. Eccekevin (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
What policy disallows us to use the institution's name or simply "university" when there is no confusion or clarity at stake? WP:COMMONNAME only applies to the title of an article and that doesn't even seem applicable here since the title of the article is "University of Mississippi." If you truly believe that we must refer to the institution using another name, I think that you're ethically obligated to propose that the article be renamed. Without such a proposal, your insistence on using another name for the subject rings hollow. ElKevbo (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Genuine question: do The New York Times and The Washington Post deadname? If not that would render your equivalency false. ~ HAL333 00:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
No, there is no equivalency at all. This isn't about if any specific sources <do thing>, it's about whether we are also obligated to <do thing> because some sources <do thing>. That clearly is not the case so now we have to figure out when we will or will not <do thing>. In the examples above - the edits that you recently reverted - editors have chosen to <do thing> when there is no apparent gain or change in meaning. So if we're not obligated to always <do thing> and <doing the thing> isn't always necessary to convey any meaning then why would we <do thing>? Why would we use the nickname of this or any other subject throughout the article if it doesn't add any clarity or convey any meaning? ElKevbo (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
but you’re not proposing this change to add clarity (if anything, OleMiss is more recognizable as a name, especially given to football). You’re proposing it on the ground that you find it objectionable, which is not policy. Eccekevin (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
You don't think that using the name of the subject - the one that is the title of the article and the name used on many of the sources - would bring clarity? Once again, I'm not proposing we forbid the use of the nickname in all cases; it still makes sense in the context of things like the university's athletics teams that still use the nickname. ElKevbo (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
But your proposal is not based on clarity (despite if you're trying to pivot now), you yourself stated it is based on perceived offensiveness. Hence, see above Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. I'm not saying anything about the change itself, I am critiquing your rationale for the change, which is not in line with policy. Eccekevin (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
It's perfectly okay for there to be multiple reasons to do something; that's a feature, not a bug.
Do you really think that our use of a 19th century nickname, a nickname that isn't even common enough to be the title of this article, is clear to our international readership? If you think that nickname is indeed to most common name of the university and the name we should be using throughout the article then you need to open a discussion to move the article to that title. Otherwise your insistence that it is the most common name and what we should be using throughout the article is completely hollow and you're just arguing for the use of this old, racist nickname because some others use it in some places (but not enough places for it to be the WP:COMMONNAME). ElKevbo (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, I am not pro or against the nickname. I am just saying that removing something based on the perceived offensiveness is not in line with what Wikipedia is. In regards to "clarity", which you've pivoted only later in your arguments and is clearly not why you seem to want to remove this nickname, I don't see any issue. It's a common nickname (it is also used in all sport pages such as Ole Miss Rebels football, but that doesn't mean that I am proposing to make it the name of the page. There's no reason the official name and the nickname should not coexist. In the same way, the Academy Awards page used both Academy Awards and Oscars interchangeably. This is also true for University pages, for exmaple a quick look at Arizona State University shows that Arizona State and ASU are used interchangibly in the page. There's no Wikipedia policy against using bynames or nicknames. So no, I don't see any issue with clarity. Again, I take issue on your reasoning, not on the edits themselves. Eccekevin (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, one could make a pretty strong argument that this article should be named Ole Miss per WP:COMMONNAME. But I'm not going to do that. ~ HAL333 17:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Such a proposal would help resolve this discussion. I'm contemplating a formal RfC to force a clear resolution and we don't need to pursue both venues/processes. ElKevbo (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A little perspective

The use of "Ole Miss", regardless of the harm it may cause, is not quite as "informal" or "uncommon" as some have suggested. ~ HAL333 01:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering the university's website and email domain is olemiss.edu, it obviously is not informal nor uncommon. Eccekevin (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Mississippi/Archive_1&oldid=1164829054"