Talk:University of Wisconsin–Whitewater/Archive 1

Observatory
If anyone from here can tell me where to find the location of white water's observatory, I'm trying to create a stub about it. Please contact my talk page--Rayc 01:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Home this helps. Tom e rtalk  17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The UW-Whitewater Observatory is located on the site of Old Main Hall, approximately where the bell tower stood. On a separate issue: is there a reason why there is a photo of a UW-Madison runner on the page? Doesn't anyone connected with the University have a photo of the Alumni Building or something that they can put up here? jwhouk 02:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo request
My previous inclusion of a "photo request" template was reverted; I don't want to start a revert war but... it's a physically extant university. It has buildings. There's no photo of them in the article. A really good article about such a university would include pictures of those buildings. Therefore a photograph is requested. It's in Wisconsin. Therefore it's a requested photograph in Wisconsin. I fail to see that this is disruptive - there are users in Wisconsin who are trying to improve photographic coverage of Wisconsin articles and that category is useful for them (at least one person has told me so, at any rate). TheGrappler 01:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted because TheGrappler had placed numerous photo requests in random cities, townships, etc. throughout Wisconsin with no rationale. I later found TheGrappler did it throughtout the world. Requesting a picture of a University or a structure makes much more sense than some small township in a random location just to prove a point I think all wikipedians should post an image of their part of the world. I did. Royalbroil 02:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will be able to work on getting some photos myself in the next couple weeks. I will try to get the observatory, log cabin, and perhaps some other pictures of the campus. Hopefully that will be suffice. If you have any other recommendations, let me know, thanks. Godlvall2 21:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I got a couple pictures up. I'll get some of specific halls that are mentioned in the article. Please be patient. Any other comments pleas let me know.Godlvall2 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pics! I have removed the photo request. Royal broil  01:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Campus
The current chancellor is Johnny Lechner's Mom.????

No. HotOne121 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hyer Hall Bust
There is bust that honors the veterans of WWI outside Hyer Hall. It appears to be President Abraham Lincoln but this makes no sense. Is this true and if it is why? HotOne121 02:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Haunted
I have heard several stories about various legends which are perhaps true or untrue to varying degrees. It might be interesting to see some stuff on this. HotOne121 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, since ghosts don't exist I would consider all of the legends to be "untrue". The 3 cemeteries in town do make an isosceles triangle. The barbed wire fence surrounding the witches tower is turned inward as to keep something in, rather than to keep people out. Whitewater was a key city in the founding of spiritualism. and there's a lot of underground tunnels which are remnants of the underground railroad and are kind of spooky. That being said, most of that relates to the city of whitewater, not the university. I also don't know if an encyclopedia is the best place for ghost stories. Zervas 03:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zervas. A source would have to be very reliable like the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel before even considering its inclusion, and even then should be confined to a small amount of text. Royal broil  01:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Uww-logo 100.gif
Image:Uww-logo 100.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

THRE IS A MOVIE BEING RELEASED ABOUT THE "WITCHES OF WHITEWATER" CHECK IT OUT ON U TUBE

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
What's wrong with this section? 69.183.116.98 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's crappy writing. It's ungrammatical ("several years prior", "she received a lawsuit"), long-winded, and hard to follow.
 * It's very obviously slanted to smear the university.
 * It's undue emphasis on a single incident.

Request for comments
This talk page section sums up the issues concisely. The Controversy section of this article is poorly written. Its sole purpose appears to be to impugn the university. It overemphasizes a couple of incidents of questionable notability. AmericanDad86, who has been editing this section for months, has disregarded all comments of other editors , may have edited anonymously , and I suspect has a conflict of interest, or at least an axe to grind. Previous comments on this issue can be found at the WikiProject Universities talk page. 71.139.142.29 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the Controversy section of the article needed?
 * Is it fair, neutral,and balanced in tone and emphasis?
 * Does it contain the right amount of detail?
 * Is it well-written?
 * Poorly written,with evident bias... Subject could be pertinent, if presented in a neutral manner... GWFrog (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Since posting this Rfc, I've done some research on the first issue presented in the article's Controversy section. A Google news search produced only a single article on the incident and one editorial, both in the same local newspaper, and both used as sources for the WP text. I could find no mention of the incident in Milwaukee or Madison newspapers. I also found nothing about the matter in the student newspaper in question, whose archives date back to at least 2011. Just thought I'd add that for those addressing the first question above. 71.139.142.29 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Controversy" sections are usually bad form, but this is best summarized as undue weight. The article is so tiny and that section is so big in comparison (and it's a relatively minor point). Trim it down to a sentence or two or scrap the whole thing and store it on the talk page for posterity and the option of working it in later on. czar ♔  23:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Czar. I would remove the entire paragraph on the newspaper. I reads like someone's agenda to defame the university. The other paragraph on the financial aid handling at least has reliable sources. I think it could be cut down to about half its current size (at most) or just delete the entire section.  Royal broil  01:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Czar. Controversy sections do not add to an article. They fuel negativity that should not be in an article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

IP 71.139.142.39, your behavior is boarding on incivility and personal attacks so I strongly suggest reeling it in. And conflict of interest?! Really?! Let's compare our edits. My 9,545 edits here at Wikipedia dating back years now span across a wide variety of articles, as shown here at my editing history. Now compare that to your edits all from yesterday, campaigning around to get rid of this material, as shown here. With the amount of time and energy I've put into this website,, I'd like to think my opinion is valued more than a IP user who's sole purpose for being here is to edit any material that's less than promotional out of this article. And by the way, I've tried editing controversy sections into other university articles as well as I think university articles shouldn't be just one big gag fest of praise, as shown here. Bottomline, Wikipedia states that if material has come from a reliable source, that it can be incorporated. And as for IP:71.139.142.29 and Royal Broil (whose name similar to that of the Royal Purple), I don't know if the two of you are employed for the college but if you are, I suggest removing yourselves from the interaction. Either way, cut it with the personal attacks the both of you. AmericanDad86 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your criticisms against me, AmericanDad. I was reviewing the article's criticism section in a fair and unbiased manner, just like czar and RFD did. With over 9,000 edits, you obviously know that consensus decides if content should remain and to expect content that you contribute to be edited mercilessly. I'm not associated with the university in any way. The only thing that I have in common with the university is that I'm one of millions of people from its state. I don't even live in that part of Wisconsin. I don't understand your Royal Purple reference. Is it some kind of insider information?  Royal broil  01:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Concur with GWFrog, Czar, Royal and RFD. It all appears very WP:Undue and I would recommend its removal. AIR corn (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I, too, believe it should be removed. If someone trips and falls, are we going to report on that?  This is completely undue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Extremely undue. Red Slash 20:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Summarize in one or two sentences. Invited here via Legobot, no previous connection to this article. If there's an issue with how a user is acting, then I suggest heading to WP:ANI. GRUcrule (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete sectionThis seems to fall foul of WP:POV the whole section appears to be (though maybe not intentionally) aimed at negativley portraying the University. Several of the important facts are uncited WP:NOCITE and as these may affect the reputation without any supporting evidence the policy would allow there removal.The whole section is WP:undue the addition of information by AmericanDad86 adds no constructive information to the section and only appears to skew the article away from its original neutral point of view. In assumption of the same: no I have never worked, visited, been aware of anyone I know including but not limited to family, friends and colleagues having anything to do with the case, the university or the State it is based in. Amortias (T)(C) 20:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion concerns RS and NPOV. To be clear, I do not like "Controversy" sections—it is better to have each piece of "controversial" information in organized sections of the article. But the main issue here is that the first paragraph of that section does not deserve inclusion. We should be using more sophisticated sources than that. As to the second paragraph, the story was reported in a more mainstream source and I do not feel strongly about including it one way or another. Notable? I'm leaning towards no because the results of the audit were not well reported, but I'll let others decide. --Precision123 (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Young Auditorium
I don't see a reason why Young Auditorium should have a separate article as no sources seem to indicate what is notable about the auditorium itself; I suggest a merge with the University article. I'll also note the article seems to have been created by someone affiliated with the Auditorium. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. No evidence of notability independent of the university. 32.218.47.98 (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

War hawk
You are invited to participate in Talk:War hawk about whether War hawk should be moved to Hawk (foreign policy). R2 (bleep) 16:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)