Talk:University of Illinois Chicago/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Largest medical district in the nation?

Isn't the Texas Medical Center in Houston the largest medical district in the country/world? I put a "citation needed" template next to this statement, but I think it should be clarified. Brianreading (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems unclear. I've seen the Illinois Medical District called the largest in the nation in documents from about 5 years ago. More recent documents say it is the largest urban medical district. And I've seen no clarity on how to measure district "size": land acreage? square footage of office/clinical/etc space? Employees?

I've looked for references on the subject; but, my searching has brought up nothing yet. I went to the Texas Medical Center page months ago to find sources for size claims. Unfortunately, the references there suffered from the same problem as those on the IMD page: None were from an independent source. If you find an independent source for these data, please incorporate them here and at the main IMD page.--Cumulant (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Article clean-up

I've begun standardizing the article with the WikiProject Universities template. Please feel free to make suggestions or corrections. Also, there needs to be a concerted effort to cite all facts presented with the article. I think most of the info here has been copied from the UIC web site, which is fine, but it does need to be cited. I'll work on this as I have time; assistance is welcomed! --Ntmg05 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Added a template at bottom which unites a lot of the UIC-related articles -- including the off-the-beaten-path articles on University Hall, National Center for Data Mining, and others.--Cumulant (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cited everything that was flagged as needing verification. Accordingly, I have removed the cleanup-university tag.--Cumulant (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

UIC safety

No mention of the frequent attacks against students in the surrounding neighborhoods, nor the emptying of the university in '68 after the death of King.

Then mention it. Be bold. siafu 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

UIC's safety record has improved greatly in the past several years but I would hardly classify any attacks being "frequent". Please note that the surrounding area is undergoing rapid gentrification right now and I suspect this will continue to improve the surrounding area. April 17, 2007 7:06PM PST

Part of my tuition dollars paying for all of this, for you? World-class university! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.96.163.86 (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Campus image?

What happened to the campus image? Can someone add a new one again?

Diversity?

Any concrete percentages of the diversity? Just curious...

Yes: These are just undergraduate numbers: 2005: Total 15448 Native American 34 0.2% African American 1,377 8.9% Asian American 3,849 24.9% Hispanic 2,513 16.3% Caucasian 6,647 43.0% International 174 1.1% Unknown 854 5.5%

Also, What are the programs the school has to keep diversity numbers and make sure under-represented minorities in the UIC system graduate? This has yet to be posted on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.96.163.86 (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable faculty

The links for 'notable faculty' should go to their UIC faculty page (obtained by using the search box on www.uic.edu), instead of nowhere or to nonexistent wkipedia pages. The original author probably best knows why he/she selected these faculty and is probably best qualified for ensuring the links are correct and most appropriate.

Student Rec Facility location in article

Not sure that the Student Recreation Facility entry makes sense organizationally. Should it be a subheading under student life?

Student recreation is almost always related to student life, not organized athletics. Since this is the case, and there's no student life section on the page, the campus section seemed most appropriate. If this is not the case at UIC, please provide evidence documenting the situation. thx. --Ntmg05 04:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable UIC people

It looks like several sections of this article, including the entire "Notable UIC People" section, were removed without discussion. I was wondering why; it all seemed like perfectly relevant and useful information. Most of the changes occurred after a user from IP address 144.216.3.81 vandalized the article with spam. Perhaps the sections were removed by accident during cleanup? Ngrusz1 00:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to recover the people, but my html skills are not up to par and the information wasn't bulletted or anything anymore so I didn't save. I agree that the information was completely relevant. Someone more sophisticated should put it back in!

My guess is that the list was removed because it was very long. Most other university pages with a significant list of notable people place that list in a separate Wikipedia article and then link from/back to the main university page. See NYU as an example. I'll do that eventually if no one volunteers to do so first. It is good information and should be present somewhere. --Ntmg05 04:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Slo-mo 06:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

History?

There's nothing on the history of UIC. Can someone add a section on this? The closest this article has to a history section is a paragraph on the development of its sports teams. Thanks. Poldy Bloom 05:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Liautaud MBA Information in Organization Section

I removed, again, the following material from the Organization section:

The UIC Liautaud Graduate School of Business is home to one of the top MBA programs in Chicago. It's accredited by AACSB International and is a member of the Graduate Management Admission Council. The Liautaud MBA program offers concentrations in accounting, economics, entrepreneurship, finance, international business administration, management, management information systems, marketing, operations management, and real estate, as well as the opportunity to earn joint degrees in accounting, economics, management information systems, medicine, nursing and public health. Students may also seek self-directed concentrations with approval. ¶
Through project courses and a strong relationship with the business community, the program offers students an opportunity to gain valuable real world experience. In the past two years, several teams of MBA students have been successful entering their startup ventures in national and international business plan competitions, and are close to bringing new products to market. ¶
The 2007-08 school year marks the 30th anniversary of the MBA program, which is highlighted by an impressive class with an average GMAT score of 610.

My reasons are:

Three paragraphs out of eight or so is completely out of proportion to the relative size, funding, or what-have-you of the MBA program versus the rest of the university.
Not even the CBA would not merit that many paragraphs out of eight on the entire university.
The material is redundant with that on the CBA page.
The grammar is clumsy: Use of the contraction "It's" is both unclear (referring to Chicago? The LGSB? The MBA program?), overly informal, and just plain doesn't sound right.
Bragging about accreditation is not done. It's akin to bragging about not being in jail.
The average GMAT score for the fall 2007 class is not 610, it is 611.
A score of 611 can stand on its own and does not need to be described as "impressive", nor does it need to be used as evidence of an "impressive class".

I understand the user who reinstated it is proud of the MBA program; and, I am as well. But sticking in those three paragraphs inappropriately is unhelpful, not neutral, and unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumulant (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Carnegie Designation

Carnegie uses a new classification system and the Research 1 has been replaced by something like "extensive doctoral granting" or similar.

Fair use rationale for Image:UICLogo.jpg

Image:UICLogo.jpg 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 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ncaab illinoischicagoflames.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Alumni & Faculty Section...Michael Gross

Hey, can someone add Michael Gross's picture to the alumni and faculty section? He's an actor known mostly for his role as the dad in the sitcom Family Ties (from the 80s)...UIC alum! Here's a picture of him from the 80s when he was most famous...

http://www.familyties-tv.com/gross.jpg

Also, Carol Braun should probably be listed as Carol Moseley-Braun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.211.175 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of University of Illinois seal

I'm wondering why the UofI seal is up there instead of the UIC specific one. UIC and UIUC are not the same school - for example - university of california at berkley is not the same school as the university of california at los angeles.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.137.137 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Both UIC and UIUC use the same seal. It is the seal of the University of Illinois and not of the individual campuses. When you refer to the University of Illinois you are actually referring to all three campuses, and not UIUC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nova10 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. I know there is a University of Illinois system; but, the seal on the page is for UIUC. In fact, I've seen a UIC seal once (used as a watermark for a flyer about the honors college). Either way, I'm not sure use is appropriate here.--99.145.87.85 (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed the Univ. of Illinois seal and placed the UIC logo. The seal is not to be used for anything but official university business and must specifically be sanctioned by the UofI Board of Trustees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.122.110 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone has once again placed the University of Illinois seal to symbolize UIC. Apparently, the controlling document for UIC graphics use is http://www.uic.edu/depts/paff/identity/PDF/standards.pdf:

The UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SEAL is reserved for ofﬁcial institutional use and is also used to validate certain legal instruments, diplomas and ofﬁcial University of Illinois documents. The Board of Trustees and the Secretary of the Board of Trustees (in whose custody the seal is placed by Illinois statute) must grant permission for its use. As a matter of long-standing practice, the Board of Trustees has not granted permission for the use of the seal for commercial or personal purposes.
The seal represents the University of Illinois as a whole and is not to be used in any other manner. The university seal should never be used for decoration, on letterhead or for general use.

– RVJ (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've put the UIC logo back in the place of the UIUC seal.HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly wrong. We've standardized on having the university seal as the topmost image of this infobox. You have to make a pretty good argument to make this article an exception and so far you haven't done that. That this institution is part of a system where each individual campus uses the same seal is irrelevant - this is still the university's seal. ElKevbo (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite the sureness I too feel in my stance, I’ll try to abstain from such an arrogant assessment of your position. I will make my points, and out of courtesy, I will make them briefly at this time, but we can go into more detail, if you really need it.

First of all, I am uncertain who is this "we" of which you speak, which has "standardized" the placement of the seal at the top of the infobox. While this is certainly a common practice, it is by no means universal. Whence comes this mandate?
Secondly, it would seem to me that the image selected for the infobox would best serve the university if it actually helped to identify the school. Use of the Seal of the University of Illinois system does not do this; it muddles and confuses. Is there another case anywhere in Wikipedia where two schools' infoboxes feature identical seals at the top to "represent" their school? Perhaps, but I’ve not come across it.
Thirdly, the source you provided which ostensibly supported your argument, in my opinion, actually does much to undermine your position. At www.uic.edu/depts/paff/identity/PDF/standards.pdf, we are presented with a 31-page PDF document called "logo system standards". The UIC logo which I have placed on the article, and which you have removed, appears on the cover page, and then appears literally dozens of times on pages 3-8, 10, 14, 15, 17-20, 23, and 24. The seal which you want to have representing UIC in the infobox only appears once, on one page in that document that you provided, on page 24.
Fourthly, the university’s own website uses the UIC logo on every page of their website, as far as I can tell, and (again, as far as I can tell) uses the U of I system seal no where on their website.
Finally, returning to the source you provided, a closer look at page 24—the one and only place where the seal appears—contains the following, specifically in reference to the seal (bold emphasis added by moi):

The UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SEAL is reserved for official institutional use and is also used to validate certain legal instruments, diplomas and official University of Illinois documents. . . . The seal represents the University of Illinois as a whole and is not to be used in any other manner.

Look, I’m not saying (and never have) that this is not "the seal" that UIC has to use. I’m saying that whether it is or isn’t is immaterial here. Using it here is not only reducing clarity of our encyclopedia, it is actually a violation of the University’s intent. I’m not talking about the "official use" language—probably most universities have similar language regarding their seals, and we go ahead and use them here. No, the part I'm talking about is the fact that UIC’s own website proscribes use of this seal to represent UIC.

I think that this does constitute a "pretty good argument", and so I’m going to return it to the way it was. I remain, however, open to further discussion. Respectfully, HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

To answer your first question, take a look at other articles, the guidelines for university articles, and the instructions for the university infobox. Second, it's unfortunate in some ways that the system (appears to) mandates that all campuses use the same seal but them's the breaks and we can't change that. Third, the document is the "logo system standards" because it addresses the usage of the family of logos; the seal is only mentioned in the document because the document isn't about the seal. Fourth, whether the webpages use the seal is completely irrelevant. Finally, the language you cite is very typical of the language used by other university's and doesn't limit our use of the seal as we don't work for them.

Apparently you're willing to edit war about this and I'm not so hopefully other editors can weigh in. ElKevbo (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(undent). Just in the interest of breaking the deadlock, while most multi-campus systems use different "seals" for each campus, as already noted the UI system does not. The best we can do, IMHO, is look at what the practice is at other articles like the UI system, which uses the same seal for all campuses. The only I have found so far is the University of Missouri System; if you look at each campus, they use the same seal for each article; that of the system as a whole. If we want to be consistent, that seems to be the best approach. Personally, I don't have a horse in this race, but I was just looking to see what other similar articles do. --Jayron32 05:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

@ElKevbo:

Thank you for the link to Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines. My request was sincere, as before posting that comment I had already looked at many other university articles. In so doing I found numerous exceptions to this rule (in nearly every Division I conference, so clearly it is not being adhered to universally); at that point I tried finding a relevant Wikiproject, thinking I would find a guideline, but I'm not very familiar with these, and never found anything like the guideline that I inferred from your comment was extant. So again, thanks for pointing it out. Let me also say that I realize that the many exceptions to this rule do not, in of themselves, constitute a reason to not follow normal guidelines here.
You say that, in some ways that the system (appears to) mandates that all campuses use the same seal, but I'm unaware of the foundation for this statement. Could you elaborate?
Your comment, Third, the document is the "logo system standards" because it addresses the usage of the family of logos; the seal is only mentioned in the document because the document isn't about the seal. ignores the fact that you provided that source to support your argument. I only made the points that a) it failed to do what you said it would do, and b) its language explicitly undermined your argument.
Your comment the language you cite is very typical of the language used by other university's and doesn't limit our use of the seal as we don't work for them would seem indicate that you did not read my comment, I’m not talking about the "official use" language—probably most universities have similar language regarding their seals, and we go ahead and use them here.
I am somewhat offended by your characterization of my conduct here . . . to state (or imply) that I am "willing to edit war about this" completely ignores the fact that I have done this twice only, and both times I have accompanied my edits with ample explanation. The first time I did this and explained myself, the other editor let the matter lie, and then you changed it, without giving any indication that you had read my earlier arguments. Indeed, I think under the circumstances I would have been warranted in simply asking you to reply to my earlier points first, but instead I exercised good faith and provided you with a detailed response. This is not (IMHO) the style of an Edit Warrior, and I resent the comment.

@Jayron32:

Minor heads up: In Illinois we never write or say "UI", we say "U of I"; it took me a while to follow your comment there, because of this.
The Missouri system is indeed a significant precedent for this case. (though I do think it's interesting that the flagship gets a color version of the seal, whereas the others do not.) Lacking knowledge either of the history of these articles or of the Missouri system itself, and given consideration of the policies page that ElKevbo has pointed out above, this constitutes a strong case for reverting back to the U of I system seal.

However, I cannot deny that this goes against my core beliefs about what is right here. I am loathe to invoke WP:IAR, and am not doing so. But I do want to ask this. What is the reason that the infobox practice is to include the university's seal? I am guessing that they wanted to provide something there that represented the university in an official manner, and in so doing, set it apart from other schools. I would be extremely surprised if, when this policy was implemented, that those who promoted it did so with the knowledge of cases like this one.

Additionally, the infobox could very well have been written with a space for "seal", yet it does not have one. It simply allows for any image. Several university articles have either a logo, or a wordmark, and some even have photographs.

The ultimate question, that I believe should be asked, is, Is the reader of University of Illinois at Chicago better served by the use of a symbol that actually represents the University of Chicago, or is she better served by a symbol used for 100 years by a different university and which now represents three separate institutions? I daresay that having the UIC logo allows the reader to know instantly that he has (or has not) arrived at his desired article. The U of I seal does not.

I want to mull on this (for a long time); as is evident from the above, I think the article and our readers will be poorly served by reverting to the ambiguous seal, so I will not do this. But neither will I revert anyone else who does change it back to the seal, at least, not until I've had the time to do some research and give the matter further consideration. Thank you both for the insight you have provided. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that your primary point - this logo does not serve our readers well in helping to identify this university - is a good one and one with which I agree. I think that is the case for nearly every college and university as seals are usually obscure ephemera used only in rare circumstances of high formality and thus unrecognizable by nearly everyone. I've made that argument a few times already in various places to try to change this consensus but I have been unsuccessful each time. If you'd like to make an effort to change this consensus, I'd certainly support such an effort. But until then it is the consensus and it's our standard even if some articles don't yet meet that standard. (And I don't have much sympathy for this university as it seems that their system has put them into this untenable position in the first place.) ElKevbo (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear that we agree on what best serves our readers. If you ever want to rumble on that point, let me know, and I'll stand with you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a silly consensus but it's the consensus. If you want to change it, please do so. But until then, this article should comply with it. ElKevbo (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Seal-Logo Update

For the record, the edit summary starting out with--

I'm not sure why someone with no knowledge about the University of Illinois system is editing this page

is unnecessarily insulting, and ignorant besides. Just how, αβδϑ, do you presume that the person making the edit with which you disagree has "no knowledge of the U of I system"? For the record, you are wrong. Now, can we talk about the matter which divides us, without engaging in ad hominems?

Your point about the file name

Dont removing it because of the wrong filename. [sic]

is a valid one. A U of I seal incorrectly labeled the "University of Pensacola seal" would still be the U of I seal. Nonetheless, I still maintain that the seal needs to be removed from the place to which you have returned it. Why? You argue--

that seal is present on all diplomas issued by University of Illinois Schools

but what's your point? That spot in the infobox template is not designated "for the seal placed on graduates' diplomas". It simply states it's for an image, presumably an image that represents the subject of the article. Colleges with reasonably attractive campuses might actually choose to put a picture of their quad there, or a prominent building; as it is, most of them use it for their school's logo. Logos are generally put there is because, as I said, the image is supposed to represent the school. And in the event where the school's seal is not shared with other campuses, the seal would be fine, too. The problem is, you placed something there that does not represent UIC. Do you disagree with me? Then visit UIC's website. You will see the UIC logo, not the U of I seal, displayed prominently on every page. The U of I seal may be in there somewhere, but I haven't seen it.

So, my dear αβδϑ, whenever you decide to come back sometime in the next year and make your 25th edit, try not to be so presumptuous, and come to look at the talk page to see if the issue that concerns you has already been discussed. (And if you do well, when you reach 100 edits, we'll promote you to ΑΒΔΘ). Happy editing. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

So...

For someone named a Husky, who primarily edits the Northern Illinois University page, to come to the University of Illinois at Chicago page and impede any progress is disturbing to me. Also based on your comments in the edit history such as UIC having an "inferiority complex" and in the previous wall of text, it is quite obvious you have a superiority complex, talking down to UIC and showing disdain and bias.

Since you are a huge advocate of removing the seal, I'm not sure why you did not remove it from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign page based on the standards of the university and based on your logic. I see your name as having removed it in both Springfield and Chicago, but not Champaign; why is that?

And sir, I have more edits than my history would show with different accounts, and far more edits than what shows in your account right now. You've failed to insult me. --AlphaBetaDeltaTheta (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Replies to ABDT--

For someone named a Husky, who primarily edits the Northern Illinois University page, to come to the University of Illinois at Chicago page and impede any progress is disturbing to me.

First of all, as of today, only 3 ¹/₄% of my edits have been to Northern Illinois University; if, in your eyes, this constitutes "primarily edit[ing]] NIU", it's perhaps time you retook 5th grade math. But more to the point, why should an editor who edits at one university's article not be able to contribute to another's? Perhaps you should read WP:OWN. And to characterize my edits here as "impeding progress" is clearly your own opinion. What "progress" have I obstructed? How would this article be better if I was not editing here?

Since you are a huge advocate of removing the seal, I'm not sure why you did not remove it from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign page based on the standards of the university and based on your logic. .

That's a fair point. If, indeed, the seal is representative of only the system, and not U of I, that argument is worth considering. At the same time, it might also be argued that that was the seal for U of I/UIUC for over 100 years, and that they might therefore have more claim to it. But if you would choose to go to the UIUC page and remove the seal (presumably replacing it with that big semi-ionic column logo), I for one, would certainly not object, and would even defend the reasoning behind it. Whether or not you would succeed is problematic, but it certainly makes sense, from the logic I put forth earlier.

based on your comments in the edit history such as UIC having an "inferiority complex" and in the previous wall of text, it is quite obvious you have a superiority complex, talking down to UIC and showing disdain and bias.

Wrong on one count, right on the other. Do I have a superiority complex? Hell no. NIU is clearly not (yet) in the major leagues; I know that and am often embarrassed by the boosteristic bullshit some people place in NIU's article, which I then delete and (repeatedly) explain why we can't cut and paste material from NIU's webpage into Wikipedia. But do I think UIC and its alumni have an inferiority complex? In many cases, yes. In UIC's defense, it has a longer history of affiliation with U of I than has UIS, and it is also a far, far better school than UIS. The mere fact that it is the historical home of the medical school means that it is a serious school, unlike UIS. Nonetheless, both schools appear to me to share a great urge to blur the distinction between the three campuses, hoping (in my personal opinion) to share in the glory of the clearly most prestigious public university in the state. The placing of the seal on this page is just one example of that. The official UIS website is, nearly in toto, a admission of parasitism.

I have more edits than my history would show with different accounts, and far more edits than what shows in your account right now.

I'm amused that you never appear to have considered the possibility that is true for other editors (read: me) than yourself. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway . . .

I've looked over your edits today. All in all, they're quite good. The only disagreement I would have with you concerns the logo, which I've explained at the file's talk page. I would encourage you to look around at other school's logos--I plan to do this myself, beyond the three or four I checked out already--and see if my point is not correct. I think what you did looked redundant, though it was, technically, proper (so too, however, is the current version). Look forward to discussing these matters with you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't have a vested interest in this conversation. In fact, I think it's downright petty and ignorant. The seal is on every official document, regardless of the campus. If you all want to use the logo of the individual campuses, than use that. If you all want to use the seal, let's not pretend that it belongs to any one campus. The University of Illinois seal belongs to UIS and UIC as much as it does to UIUC. For consistency purposes, I simply believe all three campuses should be subject to the same guidelines. Either they all use the seal and the logo, or they all use the logo alone. UIUC may have a superiority complex, and UIC and UIS may have inferiority complexes, but the fact is they are all part of the same University of Illinois system and share a seal. On wikipedia, they should share the same format since they belong to the same system. I feel the same way for any other university system whether it's University of Missouri, University of Michigan, or University of Wisconsin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.195.71 (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use the logo for each campus; the whole point of placing the seal in the infobox is to make some sort of official distinction between universities; in this case, the seal fails to do that. However, the seal is the accepted practice, so that practice needs to be addressed. (And saying that UIUC has a superiority complex is akin to saying Michael Jordan has a superiority complex.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Let us not pretend that they don't have a superiority complex. A lot of students feel like they need to be at a top-10 school to be considered the cream of the crop. But this whole superiority/inferiority complex discussion shouldn't be here so this will be the end of that. 144.160.5.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

MOS

How does such a long article get so far from the norms of Wikipedia:Manual of Style that extensive corrections like this need to get done? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Atheltics

How are the details about soccer team's or baseball team's successes from three or four years ago relevant in an encyclopedia?

How about "In recent years UIC has a successful soccer program. The men's team got into the NCAA tournament in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008" "The baseball team also did xyz" 67.175.214.83 (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than mentioning the UIC pavilion in the opening section, the better place to discuss sporting facilities would be under "Athletics"

67.175.214.83 (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Date of founding?

1858? Give me break--not even the UIC website has the temerity to claim that date. The earliest date they mention on their website is 1913, and even that is tenuous as a "founding" date. I've removed the founding date from the infobox, and would be willing to discuss with others what date, if any (it is, after all, a genuinely complex issue) should be included. But I do think it's hilarious that some UIC boosters are so anxious to claim to have the same prestige as the University of Illinois that they try to use its seal here, yet they also claim a founding date before U of I's. Positively astounding. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Some parts of the university were founded in 1858 (medicine), some in 1882 (surgery), some in 1891 (dentistry). These were incorporated into the University of Illinois in 1913; and, the Chicago Undergraduate Division began in 1946. In 1961, the health-science colleges became the University of Illinois Medical Center (separate from Urbana-Champaign); and, in 1965 the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle (now UIC's east campus) was founded. Then, in 1982 the Medial Center and Circle Campus were merged to form UIC.

So what is the founding year? Is it 1858, 1946, 1965, or 1982? the ways to decide a "founding" date are as varied as schools. You say UIC claims 1913; I've never seen that. I have, however, seen each of the four years I mentioned. But to deride these dates as "hilarious" or "astounding" brings emotion and judgement into an issue which is anything buy clear. Since a prior edit of the infobox was fairly clear on this, I'm going to add that back. Your removal of dates helped nobody and only served to muddy the waters on this issue.

Finally: There are a number of concerning comments and juxtapositions in your writing. Your tone is at times snide; you make claims of an "inferiority complex" and then set about making corrections based on that perception; and, you even conflate founding date with prestige. The result makes me wonder if you aren't engaging in a bit of projection. However, whether you are or are not, the effect is still negative. Perhaps you should refrain from editing this page; your expressed emotions and opinions seem to be the the result of some bias. Definitely not a NPOV you are putting out there.--Cumulant (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just follow the sources. Speciate (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarify what you mean. Sources are clear on when the precursors of various academic units were founded. What is unclear is what the founding date of the university is. Different sources (from the university itself) claim different dates. So, unfortunately, we cannot rely on just one source (since another would disagree). As I suggested, the best we can do seems to be mentioning dates for major parts of the university.Cumulant (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that I possess a non-computer tone of voice in these talk page discussions does not mean that I am guilty of POV in my editing. If one was to look for probably POV, one thing that might be considered is the existence of a single purpose account, which, as one whose edits are at least 57% related to UIC, might mean you. But I know that dedication to one topic does not automatically mean that one is a POV-warrior, any more than my tone is justification in of itself for such the accusation that I harbor POV on this topic. The fact is, I frequently get snide when I encounter arrogant ignorance (which, I will say upfront, does not include you; your edits are generally well-considered, from the little I've seen) To wit: For someone named a Husky, who primarily edits the Northern Illinois University page, to come to the University of Illinois at Chicago page and impede any progress is disturbing to me. My snide replies may not be a best practice, but neither is it disqualifying.

And indeed, you and I appear (if I am reading you correctly) to be very close on this issue of the founding date. We both agree that the matter of the founding date is quite unclear. It's even unclear if it can be clarified. However, while we both agree that it's unknown, we have a different idea of what to do. Your idea is (apparently) to take a stab at a partial and possible solution, using some (but not all) of the possible dates. My solution was to recognize its unknowability, by leaving it blank. I will gladly defer to others on what is the appropriate course, since, as we agree, it is unclear. (And I don't remember right now where the 1913 date came from, but it popped up when I was searching trying to resolve the matter. I certainly didn't make it up.)

And I would ask you to consider that my ostensible POV may be (I certainly think it is) simply pushing back the POV promoted by others. I do believe that there are UIC supporters who seek to confuse the unknowing on the issue of their scholastic heritage. In Illinois, as I imagine you know, to 90% of the population, "U of I" is a label that carries a prestigious connotation, but to this 90% it means the school in Champaign County, not the concrete campus in Cook County. It is undeniably to the advantage of folks at UIC (and even more so, the poor step-child in Springfield, ~~Sangamon State~~ UIS), to reduce the distinctions between them. That's why I regarded it as rather sad that they would push the use of the seal designed for Champaign,* even though the establishment date on that seal is antedated by their supposed founding date. It's a matter (in my eyes) of trying to aggrandize themselves. Is that POV? Well, given that UIC itself does not claim an actual founding date of 1858, and given that UIC itself does not ask that the U of I seal be used to represent the University, then who is pushing the POV? As I see it, I am the one who is actually upholding the rather reasonable facts as presented by UIC themselves, and my "POV" is just pushing back those who are boosters.

If you really want to see how non-POV I really am, you should review the edit history of Northern Illinois University. I have single handedly kept the article of my beloved NIU free from propaganda since I came here two or three years ago. I've had to delete sections that were literally cut and paste from NIU's website, and I've held back the NIU supporters that want to cherry pick our ratings to make us sound better than we are. I don't ask anything of any other school's page that I won't demand of my own. You may see it differently, and I can respect that, but I know that I am trying to be as even-handed as possible, even though sometimes I come across as a bit of a dick. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

*I have since learned there are other reasons for the placement of the seal in the infobox, though I still disagree with its use there. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between a "computer tone of voice," NPOV, and being snide. Now... I totally understand your giving attitude back when its served up to you. And, yes: I think we do agree on how murky this issue is. My only difference is that people come to these pages for information, so it should be there. If you talked to people on west campus, some of them would defend that 1858 date to the death. On the east campus, others insist on 1946 while others say 1965. Meh. I figure physical establishment of academic building in these locations is as good as we're going to get.

You're right that there is a POV that tries to denigrate the Champaign-Urbana campus, and I've also generally tried to steer the article away from that. Nobody gets their knickers in a twist about whether UCLA or UCSD is a fine institution; UIC should be happy to stand on its own as well. Also agree about the website cut-and-pastes: utter junk that has no place here. As for the seal issue... I've stayed out of that one because it is even less clear than founding dates. I've even seen a UIC seal once. I have no idea where it came from, but it was detailed enough and on something from one of the university colleges, so I doubt it was made up for just that brochure.

As for why so many of my edits relate to UIC... I used to edit some things more related to my work. However, I found I was often brushing with including primary material. Plus the area I work in is technical and I got tired of correcting widespread misperceptions that I have to fight in other parts of life. Nonetheless: Thanks for being civil on this and for noting the large amount of common ground. Perhaps someday we'll get more clarity on these issues. (Then again, if Ignatius was unsure of their founding date for so long... maybe not!) Cumulant (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wordmark choice

I really don't understand the reason for this edit, and it was made with no edit summary. I at least provided some insight into my thinking with my change to the wordmark, and I'd appreciate a discussion here before it is reverted again. Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Founding date, redux

I see that once again, we have some UIC boosters trying to lay claim to roots even earlier than U of I itself.[1] Doesn't wash. The school's own website[2], which is the source used here, does not support the claim made. I should write this off to simple vandalism, but I want to establish a record that this sort of crap is not going to be allowed to slide. U of I is older than UIC (for that matter, by my interpretation, NIU is older than UIC, but that's not the argument here), period. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

University of Illinois Online

This is towards ElKevbo. I get what you're trying to say about unnecessary links. I wanted to run a potentially better addition by you. Due to the fact that the webpage is dedicated to online education it does have merit. A large portion of the population cannot attend traditional education. The University of Illinois at Chicago ensures that online students receive the same high level of education by partnering with Pearson Education. The students attend online classes and Pearson acts as their educational counselor throughout their education. The webpage is an example of this unique program. I think a section on this program would be an informational addition. What do you think about that instead? I apologize for being less inspired the first time around. Thanks BrettofMoore (talk 7:52, 9 September 2014

As stated in our policy on external links, we generally don't provide more than one link to the same domain. I think the idea is that if we provide one link to a domain then readers should be able to find other parts of the same website. Like nearly any policy or guideline, we can make exceptions but I don't think that one is warranted in this instance. The online education part of the university is just another division of the university and we don't provide directories of links in articles. ElKevbo (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused where the line is drawn. There seems to be two UIC links. One is the side box and one in the references. On top of that there is a link to the athletics website. That can be found through the university sports section. How does that fit into the policy? On top of that the vast majority of the resources used to back up the written text are from university URLS. It seems from the layout of the University wikipage that University webpages are okay as long as they bring something to the piece. The Pearson and UIC partnership to improve online education at the institution does have important implications and seems newsworthy to me. Given all that. Would you mind letting me try to make an edit with that additional information and you can see what you think? Let me know? (talk 6:55, 11 September 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.33.222 (talk)

There's naturally overlap between information in the infobox and the body of the article. The infobox is meant to be a handy summary of vital characteristics of and information about the topic so it's extremely common for the information to be repeated in the body of the article often in more detail and with additional context. So that's nothing to worry about.

The inclusion of the athletics article is a bit stickier and I think you could make a legitimate argument that it's unnecessary and in some instances a violation of WP:EL. I've started to wonder about that myself and I've even considered floating the idea of removing those links from articles.

I'm afraid that none of this discussion, however, has changed my mind about the propriety of including a link to the online division of this university. This is an encyclopedia article aimed at a general audience. It's not a vehicle for promoting the university or providing information primarily intended for potential applicants. With that said, if the university's online education division and partnership with Pearson really are significant facts that are important for readers to know about if they're to understand this topic then it would be more appropriate to add a (brief) section to the article body describing them (with references, of course). It might be entirely appropriate to add a paragraph or a subsection to the existing "Organization" section in "Academics." (And if you happened to trim down the overly-long and promotional-sounding section about the Honors College, that would be great, too!)

This certainly isn't my article so feel free to seek opinions from other editors. This would be a good place to start. ElKevbo (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ElKevbo for your thoughts as you might know from looking at my own history. I'm not a seasoned wiki editor yet. Thanks for clarifying the double information. I'll see what I can definitely spend a little bit of time next week editing down the Honors college section. I'll spend some time next week seeing what I can come up for a section about the Organization/Academics portion of the article. Not sure when that will be, I want to make sure I do it right the first time.::::BrettofMoore (talk 08:33, 12 September 2014

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University of Illinois at Chicago. 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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of Illinois at Chicago. 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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on University of Illinois at Chicago. 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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on University of Illinois at Chicago. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on University of Illinois at Chicago. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Hispanic-Serving Institution

Can the editor(s) who insist on removing Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) from this article please explain their rationale? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to treat these edits as vandalism as long as the editor involved continues to make these edits with no attempts at discussion or justification. ElKevbo (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Illinois at Chicago. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 11:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)