Talk:University of Miami/Archive 1

'Suntan U' mention?

I think there should be some mention of Miami's unofficial nickname, 'Suntan U' in this article. Even if it's a swipe at UM, I think it could be includede because It's a well-known school nickname and says something of the school's past reputation. Even if it is only something along the lines of "U Miami had, in past, been jokingly refered to as 'Suntan U' because of it's resort-like campus and party school atmosphere." I'll try and find some references that explain the origin of this nickname, I think it goes back to the 60's or earlier.

I'm not trying to validate anyone's critcism of UM as being a party school (if that is indeed a criticism, because UM is not really a party school in the same sense that campus-centered state schools like Indiana are, the last time UM made a 'best party schools' list was on a Playboy list from the 80's. The social scene at Miami is less concentrated on house and greek parties, and more on Coconut Grove and South Beach. Of course, Miami students still party, it is college after all and you're still more likely to see kids sunbathing in the middle of campus than in the library, but the school's image has definately changed), I know that it's academics have improved in the Shalayla-era, so lighten up if the nickname offends your school pride. I'm a 'Cane myself and I think if you went to that school in the '00's you realy got the sense that the social scene and the student body had significantly changed since the 80's/early 90's.

Suntan U Reference:

So it was the hippies...

"The academics at this school have been steadily improving since the 70’s, back when it was known to beach-loving hippies as “Suntan U.”"

from the College Prowler guidebook; University of Miami - Off the Record

Crticism page

recently, some one changed the criticism section, and stated that it was one student organization (instead of "many"). this is innacurate. Several student organizations have signed on to the campaign. United black Students and Outspoken being the two largest.

Also, They added that the student org involved was regarded as "small". Considering not only the fact that that information was taken from from a qoute from Donna Shalala, (who is the target of the campaign and may have other motives to state that the organization is samll), but that many students orgs are indeed invovled, and as stated in the herald article, they have over 800 signatures out of a student body of 10,000, and as stated in the same herald article that the listerv is well over 300 from a single semester, this is an innacurate and misleading statement. Please discuss.

I have just created a revised article in response to come of the complaints, it is at the bottom of this discussion page (allll the way at the bottom). Please review it.

I am posting the article. If there is disagreement, please do not edit without generating discussion. thanks

Will the people who continually delete the criticism section please give a logical or rational reasoning why the university of miami should not be criticized? There have been nearly half a dozen vandalsim reverts over the last week, and its becoming a growing problem. I can't get is why none of those deleting the section want to talk about it?

I've contacted aribtrators, and I plan to begin blocking or protecting the page, but can't we all just grow up and talk out loud?? Thanks, -Jake

Its good that its protected, but its protecting vandalism to a degree. The criticism section has been removed without dialogue or thought, though it has been repeatedly atempted. I have treid to contact these people through their IP pages, and their Wiki names (though often they are anonymous), and have had no response. Its not that dialogue has not been tried, its that the people who delete the section refuse to respond. With that note, I believe it should be put back up unless someone can give a good reason for not doing so.

Again, every fact and quote is referenced in detail and are completely accurate. Its under a Criticism section (which every article about something substantive should have). Is there a reason why we should protect the vandalism that ahs occurred to it?

As an impartial observer, I observe that if one side doesn't want to discuss its continued removals, they should 'lose' by default. Maybe protecting the page while the Criticism section is in there will encourage them to cooperate.Tommstein 06:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Further non involvment with the discussion, I would agree, should automatically favor the side of having a criticism section up. This, I feel, is especially the case if it is the only side able and willing to defend its position in a discussion section. I guess we should wait a couple days and see. jcdpi 22 December 2005

I have been following this edit war with interest and am amazed that relevant and sourced information is being deleted without justification or even comment. In my mind this is blatant vandalism and those who are guilty of it should face lengthy bans. No Guru 23:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please look to the "Protected" section (At the bottom of this page) on this discussin forum to continue with this....I just posted some relevant information jcpdi

Untitled

Please add a redirect from "university of miami"

This page could use a nice photo of the campus.

1) is univ. of miami of florida a sports school? 2) most of the famous alumni are pro athletes? 3) what is the sentiment between UM and Miami University???

Regarding the 3 questions above:

1) yes, UM could be considered a "sports school" however, it is much smaller than a state school, such as sports rival Florida State University. UM only has about 8,000-9,000 undergrads. I think the school is percieved as being larger because of the football team's popularity. The school does have a basketball arena on campus, the Convocation center, (which, most notably, hosted the first 2004 Presidential debate) but the football games take place in the Orange Bowl, which is located in a section of Miami known as Little Havana (about 15-20 minutes away from the campus). Other teams of note are the baseball team, who have done pretty well in recent years and the diving team and track teams, which have some Olympic medal winners in the last 5 years (can't cite specifics, but in 2004 Greece there was a sprinter, a girl, who took a silver medal in a short-distance race, that was a UM student).

2) A lot of them are. football: Vinny Testaverde, Santana Moss, Ed Reid, Ken Dorsey, Dwayne Johnson (also known as The Rock, pro-wrestler/actor). Diving: Greg Louganis (sp?) We've had a few famous alumni in entertainment, such as Ray Liotta (actor from Goodfellas) Pat Metheny (jazz guitar virtuoso, briefly attended UM before being offered a teaching position there) and a few others I can't think of.

3) I don't know what that question means. Are you talking about Miami of Ohio? There really isn't any sort of rivalry or anything between UM and Miami of Ohio, in sports or otherwise. We're not in the same conference. Most people who go to Miami of Ohio probably clarify which Miami they went to by saying they went to Miami, Ohio, because most people associate Miami with Florida.

Just to distinguish: the "Univeristy of Miami" (UM) is in Florida. The one in Ohio is "Miami University."-Brian Brockmeyer 21:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we wear t-shirts that say "Miami was a University when Florida still belonged to Spain." After all, you are a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies. NATCH! -James Howard (talk/web) 15:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

...Okay, but ask anyone in the country where "Miami" is, they will say Florida, regardless of who entered the union first. SNATCH!

The name of our university is Miami University, not "Miami of Ohio"... the media likes to use that moniker to differentiate us from "Miami of Florida). UM's president is a graduate of our institution. Further, we were founded in 1809 while Miami of Florida was established in the 1920's. 1809 vs. 1920 big difference!

Ray Lewis/Sylvester Stallone

Brian, can you explain why you object to the clarification regarding Ray Lewis's status as an alumnus of University of Miami? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Brian/Juiced, I have addressed this on Brian's discussion page, which Brian deleted without responding to. Please discuss your objection to the clarification on Lewis' graduation from UMD. AriGold 17:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding AriGolds insistence on qualifying Lewis' status as an alumnus of Miami. Perhaps it stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of "alumnus". Webster's defines an alumnus as "a graduate or former student (emphasis added) of a particular school, college, or university." Seeing as how Lewis was a former student at Miami and the title of the category in question is "Notable Alumni" and not "Notable Graduates," there is no need to qualify Lewis' status. If you want to signify that Lewis received his degree from the University of Maryland, the appropriate place and way to do so would be in the Alumni section of the Maryland article. Soldia1219 19:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If you ever have a question for me, please just ask. It's not hard to find my discussion page. Anyway, wouldn't the more appropriate place for Lewis be under "Attended but did not graduate", as he did not graduate from Miami and we have the disctinction in the alumni section to seperate those who attended from those who graduated? I also tried doing this a while ago, but Soldia changed it. AriGold 20:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I had just added Sylvester Stallone in the notable alumni section; unfortunately, a few minutes later, a clown reversed the edit. Please take note of the definition of alumnus in the third paragraph in this section, to-wit: You do not have to be a graduate to be an alumnus; merely a former student. Colleges don't seem to have a problem with this. By way of illustration, the University of Florida proudly recognizes Buddy Ebsen as an alumni, albeit he attended there only during his freshman year. And Stallone has been the subject of countless alumni honors from "The U". Hokeman 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Stallone was there for 3 years coming within a "few credit hours of graduation". That quote came right out of the UM Newspaper when it chronicled his visit to the campus in the late 70's. Hokeman 01:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

'Top university' stuff

The clarification that mentions the #55 ranking is good. The only thing is, it should be mentioned what year that was, since for all anyone knows it could have been 1950. Does anyone know (and want to insert in the article) what year it was?Tommstein 22:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw it in this year's publication, 2005. AriGold 12:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Crticism

New "criticism" section was added, as wikipedia is the forum for articles of factual basis and not simply a spokespiece for the represented article. All things and all people should be subject to criticism. All of the facts are cited and refrenced with links to UM's own website and others. Someone previously removed this added section, please do not do so again.

If you feel its nuetrality is in question or its factual basis lacking, please begin a discussion about it. otherwise, don't simply erase pieces becuase they do not fit your own liking. thanks,

192.88.124.202, you have deleted the criticism page, but have not left an explination for why the University of Miami should not be open to criticism. Please give your reasoning. As stated above, all sources are more than well cited and refrenced, all sources are accurate information. This is considered vandalizing in wikipedia. if you continue to do this, you will be blocked.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do not delete the criticism page.

The vandalism warning tags go on the vandals' user talk pages.Tommstein 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Protected to spur discussion. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are we even entertaining the thought of keeping this section? It's factually inaccurate (UM does not pay the service workers; UNICCO, a Boston company, does...the "criticism" is of UNICCO, not UM), it uses old information (the survey is from 2001), and has generated little publicity. It's silly and out of place in an encyclopedic/reference article about the University of Miami. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in an article on UNICCO.Almeidaisgod 05:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, its good to have a discussion. The herald reported recently that Unicco has stated that all UM would have to do is pay them more money and they will raise the wage and provide health care (Published on October 7, 2005, Page 1C, Miami Herald, The (FL)). Thus, this is indeed about what UM pays its janitors

Contracting out a company is of course a method of deffering liability and reducing costs. But lets think for a moment here. To further eximplify why UM has liability on the issue (and has both the financial and the moral obligation as the four hudnred workers are constituents of this school) -Who pays Unicco? What did Unicco say about UM raising funds and they would raise the money paid in the herald (and previously to the Chronicle)? I would disagree, with this cited information, that UM has no say in what the service employees who work at UM are paid. I can include this clarification in the article if it helps.

Furthermore, take a look at the articles that were cited in the hurricane in 2001, and chronicle of higher education in 2001 which cited similar facts, and that these buisness practices (of paying janitors below the federal poverty level) were openly pursued by UM (check the qoute from the buisness admin that I linked in the history of the criticism section, its revealing). Thus, not only does UM have the ability, and thus the moral obligation as I would argue, but also they openly apply this practice of finding the lowest bidder, not the buisness with the best moral practices.

Obviously, UM has much to with what Unicco (who UM pays) pays its janitors, as the Miami Herald, UNICOO itself as well as student government and the entire feculty senate (see below)- which i recomend reading the ad hoc report- knows, and so should students.

Furthermore, the article cites where the criticism began (in 2001 where the entire faculty senate and all of student governement saw the connection that UM had to what it pays its janitors, further bolstering my point of the relevance to UM criticism,becuase not only did both parties know, but Shalala knew and acknoweldged it, and still did not help to fund living wage and health care), and leads up to where it is currently, refrencing the students invovled. Thus, the information is not dated, it is a timeline of rationale for students currently criticizing UM and trying to bring better values to UM. Also, workers report to SEIU in the same herald article that little to no raises have been given within the last four years (nelson Hernandez reports working here 25 years and receiving no more han a ten cent wage raise), thus the information is still relevant regardless if it is used for historical background of the working conditions or current information. If you would like to add to that in the criticism section that no recent studies within the last three years have been done, that would seem logical. Either way, interviews with dozens of workers, (which i can dig up if need be) will attest to the fact that similarly deplorable conditions still exist today. In fact, refrence every major media source thus far and it will give you that information.

Also, becuase "it has generated little publicity" (which I would disagree with as the students involved were also just recently featured in the front page of the Metro and State section, Dec. 20th, The Miami Herald, one of the largest papers in florida) is not a good reason to not post somthing, in fact, all the more reason to get factual information out there.

I plan to create a seperate section for people to link to so that they can get a full story and not clog the UM sight, as you can see there is alot of information. But the basic facts (a two or three paragraph section) is important for people doing research on UM's relation to Miami (miami hovers around the third worst in poverty in the nation). Please respond as soon as possible so we can work together on creating an article that is factually accurate and informative.

-Jacob jcdpi

I consider myself a fairly neutral observer - I've only even been to the state of Florida twice in my life, and I have no personal association with the University of Miami (I'm a Dartmouth College student). I reverted the deletion of the Criticism section as it was obvious vandalism to me. The blanking of an entire section that does not have any obvious factual problems without even an edit summary (other than an auto-generated "reverting" summary) is blatant vandalism to me. Now that I read over the Criticism section more carefully, I see that Almeidaisgod has a very valid point - all of the facts in there are from 2001. The only sentence that has to do with current times is the last one: "Currently, several organizations on campus are trying to pressure the university to fund a living wage and provide access to health care for contracted service workers." Can this sentence be backed with some specifics and/or major media citations? If so, then expand the section to include some of those references and otherwise leave the section as is. If it cannot be backed with some current facts, a case needs to be made for the historical importance of this criticism. That case must be made - cite something that shows that this criticism would, for example, be worthy of putting in a book about the history of Florida, for example. If you were to write a 10-page section of a book summarizing the history of the U of Miami, would you include this? If the case can't be made for the historical significance, then delete the section. I do agree with jcdpi that, if it is significant, the section is appropriate to be in this U of Miami article. Since the section cites so much on-campus debate, including involving the president of the University, then it should be here, and not in a UNICCO article. --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 20:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. The student organization that is spearheading the effort to raise wages and health care for workers is called STAND. There is a link to the web site at the bottom of the page (and i did link it in that article as well). This is the sole project they have taken on, and it is a part of a much larger movement (nearly one hundred colleges in the nation according to United Students Against Sweatshops, i think...). We were featured more the half a dozen times in UM's paper- The Hurricane- as well as being on the cover of the paper when STAND held the largest march relative to activism in recent UM history. As was noted, STAND and other student orgs (United Black Students, United Mexican stuents, SpectrUM, and several others) were featured on the front cover of the Metro and State section of the Miami Herlad, a paper that circulates in tens of thousands of localities all the way to Atlanta, with only this issue in mind. STAND members were also recently featured on WLRN (this all within the last month) on NPR. The hubbub was caused becuase no ones seen anything like it at UM.

I think your criticism is valid. I would disagree, though in what sort of information is important. I wrote the article in a manner just to show that UM was being critized and what about (the report in 2001 is what initiated the criticism and student action - without it this campaign may not be happening), and less about who was doing the critizing and in what tactics. If this would resolve the issue, I dont mind rewriting it. But i really think people should focus on the issue and not the rebel rousers who are raising the issue or in what ways they are raising it. That there is an issue is obviouse (cite all media sources given), it does not matter who is saying it.

would it matter more if 70 workers have said it, and have asked Shalala to help, than if 80 students went on a protest? It might be the truth, but wikipedia should not be open to such biases- the bias of whose voice is louder instead of whose facts are straight. I would hope not.

Furthermore, there is over 800 signatures (1000 if you include online signatures) on a petition that support the Unicco workers and their struggle at UM (these already released to Shalala, and The Herald cites it in the Dec. 20th article). Dozens of Clergy are now involved, as are larger outside organizations like Democracy for America (DFAM). Size, again, is of such little relavence, I feel. I think the issue is what is important, not that alot of people are critizing UM, but just that there is criticism to be had. There are other things -such as UM's dealing with companies that knowingly violate labor laws and human rights oversees, like Coke- that receive no attention at all. But if a documented report of professional quality (like the Chronicle of Higher Learning in 2001) tells the tale, i think its good enough reason to put it on.

Wikipedia is not the media- this community should care about facts, not mainstream ideology. Mainstream ideology is what produces the notion (which not even UM would say is valid) that UM has no say over what its janitors are paid.

furthermore, when all of faculty senate and student government produced the report that UM fund the living wage and health care for all its workers, it was ignored by the president. The only method of public relation with an enormous private institution was simply shifted aside (look at the refrences in the article- it has her response online). That happened in 2001, but I certainly am still going to criticize Shalala for it. She has had four years to deal with the issue- all the more reason to have criticism in fact.

if people do disagree that historical information is not relevant, than I will change the article to more recent stuff. But this is not about the students, and it is not about their tactics. It is about the workers who want pay that is above the federal poverty line, and an administration who refuses to do it. And it is about health care that actually can help someone (like Yelba Diaz who had a heart attack that costs $40,000 and only makes 13,000 a year, who will never make it out of debt alive, or Martiza Paz who had cancer and is undersimilar conditions)- Or even the innumerable struggling parents who all they want is to have time to learn english but they cant becuase they have to work three jobs just to let their kids live with food on the plate.

This story needs to be told, especially becuae Miami has the fifth highest cost of living, and is the third worst in poverty in the US. And as the largest employer in Miami UM is making those conditions worse by not allowing equitable or decent Pay. If UM is not responsible for the buisnesses that clean its own grounds I don't know who is. You don't have to have words like the ones I lay out above in this tirade (and i apolgize for the length) in the Piece on criticism, but I don't think anyone can say that the history of UM as the largest employer enforcing (i use enforce becuase workers, students and faculty get together and say no to poverty like they did in 2001) the lowest wages possible, when there are no other jobs available, is irrelevant to UM's relation in Miami. I would like to hear somthing from the detractors.

jcdpi

I am going to respond briefly to this, partly to clarify my stance a bit. I'm not saying that the 'who' and the 'what tactics' are important at all. As it was written previously was very appropriate encyclopedic wording (maybe with a couple minor additions). I agree that the focus should be on what the school is being contributed about. I, am, however, saying that the scale is the important thing. Quoting you: "I think the issue is what is important, not that alot of people are critizing UM, but just that there is criticism to be had." - I STRONGLY DISAGREE here. I patrol the recent changes and new articles occasionally on Wikipedia, and if policies followed this ideal, we'd have millions of totally useless articles. Just look at the Articles for Deletion list - more than half of those AfDs are because the movement/person/organization/whatever haven't had enough major media coverage to be worthy of a Wikipedia article. And let's not let this debate about the Criticism section degrade into a debate about Wikipedia's policies on this. Lack of major media coverage, in my opinion, is the primary argument against including that Criticism section, and is a very valid and powerful reason. A protest involving 80 students - I would call that miniscule and not worthy of a mention here. As a point of comparison, I could at least double the length of the current Dartmouth College article with writing about student protests like that. An organization involving over 400 students (and keep in mind Dartmouth only has 4,300 or so undergrads) recently created a huge controversy over getting the College to divest from Sudan - and they obtained 2,000-something written signatures from Dartmouth students, and being featured in every other issue of the campus newspaper and a couple of featurings in area newspapers. Other protests have involved anti-homosexuality biases in the College administration, etc. These things are not worth an entry in the Dartmouth article, in my opinion. As I say, I'm not at all familiar with this issue at the University of Miami other than what you've written, so I can't say too well how these issues at Dartmouth compare.

The facts that, as you say, STAND held the largest march, you were featured on the front page of that Miami Herald section, etc, are very significant and show the strong argument for having this criticism section, and quite possibly enough reason. However, "the story needs to be told" is not a reason (there are plenty of those out there...), and the poverty problems of the Miami area needing to be discussed is also not a reason (minimal wages are a natural and appropriate response in a capitalist economy to a high unemployment area) in my opinion. However, the University of Miami being the biggest employer enforcing low wages is a good reason to include this. So, while the University of Miami certainly has the power and a good deal of obligation to ensure the proper treatment of contracted employees, it does not have the sole obligation - UNICCO are the ones writing the paychecks when all is said and done. If these were direct employees of the university, your case would be stronger - you certainly have a strong case as it is. I'm not going to voice a strong opinion either way, but I will continue to comment in here if I see it appropriate, and I hope my comments are helpful to the debate.

So, I'm putting together a bulleted list of reasons to include the criticism section, and reasons not to include it, at least in my opinion. I hope this helps with organizing the debate a bit. This is by no means a complete list, but it highlights, at least what I see as the more influential points in each direction. I'm not including points that I see as irrelevant to the debate (such as the importance of "get(ting) factual information out there"). There's certainly plenty of debate to be had about what is and isn't relavent to the discussion as well.

Reasons to include the Criticism section:

• Important issue to the economy of the Miami, even if only in symbolic value and not in actual economic value.

• Involves the University of Miami heavily, including a major conflict with the president of the university.

• STAND held the largest march in recent protest history at UM

• Various organizations have been featured on the front page of a Miami Herald section, and other major media coverage does exist.

Reasons against including the Criticism section:

• Not enough major media coverage to be considered significant.

• Old information (issue dates to 2001, though there is certainly still some activity about this as-yet unresolved issue)

• Doesn't just involve the University of Miami - UNICCO is the organization writing the paychecks.

--_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 03:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent Points, and I would tend to agree with all of them. Before I go on, i really fear that the people who actually deleted the sections are not involving themselves at all in this conversation -I know its the holidays so we can give it some time-.

The debate as to what forms of criticism in relation to what media coverage they have gotten is another thing all together. (and on further thought I agree with your statements- though it is important recognize that issues that are marginalized in the media should not mean marginalization in wikipedia, for instance if wikipedia was around when Suharto's regime invaded East Timor, when no media covered it, and 200,000 people died, wikipedia should be the source to get that information- Wikipedias strength, I believe, lies in the fact that it is independent in a way no other source is)

We know that STAND and the issue has gotten alot of play on the media. 80 people is miniscule-but its gargantuan to UM standards. Comparing Dartmouths activism with UM is apples and oranges (STAND wouldnt be on local NPR and The Miami Herald otherwise). Either way, media has played a huge part in it, and STAND's gotten more attention the last semester than any issue relative to UM has ever other then sports- and theres no competetion there.

We know that The Herald (three times - recent artilce about workers handling toxic chemicals and bleeding out the nose came out i think last thursday), The Miami Hurricane (maybe every other issue), The New Times (twice) several radio stations (i can get a list...), NPR (once), ABC (once) a few spanish channels (channel 41) and other media (local stuff) have covered the issue (if that is a measure of its relavence). And this is only the first semester its been taken seriously by a group of organized students with w 300 member listerv.

I would argue strongly in favor of keeping the older information (defined as the chornicle report and qoute from biusness admin, and faculty/student gov vote asking Shalala to install living wage) up becuase it

• explains the reasoning of the critics that are currently involved
• same buisness admin works at Um and has not expressed beleifs different than in 2001
• Explains how the movement began (skipps, in fact the group of small but dedicated students inovled at that time that got the faculty senate and student government vote on the issue)
• Student gov and faculty report shows the initial and continual reaction of the UM administration to the issue.
• conditions, according to workers and SEIU (the union now organizing workers) are the same as 2001, thus they are still relavent
• Shalala refused to comply with student gov and facluty senate and has failed to improve conditions even as the school (defined and student gov and faculty) claimed it be what they wanted- and still has yet to instate the demands of those two parties. Thus, this in itself is a criticism.

If shortening that section to one paragraph, and including only two paragraphs that detail current involvment -with a link to "UM Student movement to install living wage" (or something shorter) that is more detailed.

Thanks for the comments, I do indeed find them helpful. But I really feel the people involved with deletions should be more engaged in this discussion. Thanks- and I'll keep it shorter next time. jcdpi

OK, heres a revised article and this is what it does

• clarifies UM's position on the issue and the debate as to whose responsibity it is to fund a living wage
• exemplifies press coverage and student support
• briefs the reader on current campaign and recent actions,
• begins with the history and rational (the chronicle of higher learning report), and Unicco qoute that states conditions have not improved much (Unicco being the employer) since.

If I dont hear from the detractors that have actually deleted the section previously, I think its safe to assume there are no objections. User Smith120bh, if you have any comments please go ahead and edit it and post it. Thanks

Several student organizations (including UBS, UMEX, and Outspoken) spearheaded by the group STAND have begun a living wage :::campaign that has generated a degree of press coverage, including being featured on WLRN radio, The Miami Herald, and the cover :::of the local UM campus newspaper, The Hurricane.

The move towards a living wage began in 2001. During this time, a census of 195 colleges in North America from the Chronicle of Higher Education dated August 3, 2001, ranked the University of Miami ranked second worst in pay for its janitors and was one in twelve universities that paid its service employees below the federal poverty line [1]. According to Unicco, the conditions are similar today, with $7.53 an hour being the average pay. SEIU claims it to be less than this, though. [2].

Both Unicco and the University of Miami have deferred liability in the issue. Unicco has claimed in several instances that all UM would have to do is fund a living wage to resolve the issue [3]. On the other hand, David A. Lieberman, the senior vice president for business and finance at UM had said in 2001 that "We don't raise any questions about their business. We allow them to pay whatever they want to pay as long as they can recruit and retain workers, and still make a buck at the end of the day." [4].

Nonetheless, in 2001 both the Faculty Senate and student government passed a resolution asking the University's president Donna Shalala to help fund a living wage for these employees. Shalala chose not to fund a living wage and instead vowed easier access to a nurse, two sick days, and access to English classes [5]. This action later galvanized support from organizations on campus who are now trying to pressure the university to fund a living wage and provide access to health care for contracted service workers.

A recent article where student groups were featured on the front page of the "Metro and State" section of the Miami Herald stated that “University of Miami students…are putting unprecedented pressure on President Donna Shalala to improve conditions for about 400 janitors who struggle with low wages and no health insurance”, and their current actions included speak-outs, food giveaways, the building of “an active e-mail list of more than 300 students and gathered 800 signatures from an undergraduate population of 10,000 for a petition calling for better worker pay”. [[6]]

I think it looks good. I just removed the extaneous three colons in the text (only need 'em at the beginning of the paragraph) to make it easier to copy, added a couple wikilinks, and fixed a grammar error. For anyone who tries to remove this, there's plenty of discussion here that you can point them to. I'll let you do the honors. --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 05:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article has been protected for two weeks, but there has been no substantive discussion for over a week. I'm unprotecting to see if normal editing can proceed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

It's ridiculously long and needs to be pared down. Not only does it read like nothing more than talking points from STAND, but it's longer than the Overview and Organization sections of the article and equal to the Athletics section. A relatively minor issue like this, in an encyclopedic article on UM, should not consume the subject article. It should comprise no more than a paragraph, describing briefly the nature of the controversy, briefly stating that a student organization has formed to protest, and briefly stating the University's position. That's it.-Juicedpalmeiro 09:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

       Agreed, it seems far too long for such a minor issue --BHC 11:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've condensed the section to an appropriate length.-Juicedpalmeiro 04:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue has gained more media attention than any other issue about UM student groups...ever(cite New Times (3 times), Miami herald (4 times- two articles and two op-eds), WLRN on NPR radio (once), and the Hurricane (many times)...and many others). I agree it was to long originally but the focus now read like talking points from UM- it doesnt even mention the Organizations stance or Unicco's stance on the issue. The fact that Unicco has repeatedly stated that it is in fact UM's responsibility (as cited in the previous article), is surely of mention. More than that, it states that it was one student organization (instead of "many"). this is innacurate. Several student organizations have signed on to the campaign. United black Students and Outspoken being the two largest.

Also, They added that the student org involved was regarded as "small". Considering not only the fact that that information was taken from from a qoute from Donna Shalala, (who is the target of the campaign)and not from an objective source or poll, and that many students orgs are indeed invovled, and as stated in the herald article, they have over 800 signatures out of a student body of 10,000, and as stated in the same herald article that the listerv is well over 300 from a single semester, this is an innacurate and misleading statement. Also, the movement now has open support from both churches (the Episcopalan and the St. augustin student center, as featured by an add bought by in fact 5 differnt churches in the Miami Herald adressing Shalala about the issue, last sunday)

Sorry, but 800 "signatures" (not even active prosters!) out of a student body of 14,000 (or, even worse, just 300 on the listserv) is a miniscule grouping (5.7%). Dubbing the movement "relatively small" (a direct quote from the Herald article) is not only accurate, but quite generous. (Also, if you want to get into the whole credibility game over Shalala's quote, then you also call the unverified "800" number of signatures STAND claims it has into question...you can't have it both ways.) The section, in its current incarnation, accurately and concisely describes the existence of a protest group, the nature of the controversy (including a citation to the 2001 Chronicle of Higher Education article and a statistic on the average pay of the UNICCO custodians), the University's response, and the position of the faculty, and provides two citations where further information can be obtained. In short, it's encyclopedic. I'm sorry to inform you that Wikipedia exists as an encyclopedia and not as an instrument to promote, propagate, or fuel a specific agenda.-Juicedpalmeiro 05:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia exists as an encylcopedia...but don't forget that it is the process which we are using now that makes Wikipedia unique and important. I appreciate your thoughts. Let me clarify my position

• 800 signatures of the undergrad pop (which is 10,000, without the graduate pop who has not been involved) is nearly 10% of undergrad pop., this from a single semester. More than that, the number is verified, look at the Herald, it does not say STAND claims to have...it says it has.
• The qoute "relativly small" is not direct from the author of the Herald article, but rather from Donna Shalala. It is misleading to say that the author believes this in any way to be the case. A more accurate depiction of the Heralds view was that students are "putting unprecedented pressure on Donna Shalala" to get healthcare and pay. Thus, it is quite misleading to omit that, and add Shalala's qoute as original from the article.
• We can add in, shalala says.."small", and than the article states..."unprecedented...", I think thats accurate-tell me what you think
• Not including the fact that Unicco has repeatedly stated that it is UM's responsiblity to fund the living wage, that the student government (cited here...http://www.thehurricaneonline.com/media/paper479/news/2001/11/30/News/Student.Government.Recommends.Living.Wage-154410.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.thehurricaneonline.com) and that student groups (becuase United Black Students, UMEX, Outspoken, The St. Augustine Student Center, and the Episcopalian church on campus as well as STAND) have stated that it is the universities responsibility to fund the janitors basic requirments for living in Miami, along with all of faculty senate, is pretty misleading...and gives disproportionate voice to UM. An encyclopedia should not be a spokespiece for UM, it should be an objective source of information. Alot of criticism has been charged from many areas now, to marginalize this issue as "STAND's issue" is pretty silly, especially looking at all the press:
• The issue has gained more media attention than any other issue about UM student groups ever before.It deserves two paragraphs, the second on student response (giving only one side of the issue and not giving the opposing side its actual position is misleading and gives a lopsided perspective of the issue)

Herald: 1. 8, Jan. 2006 //

"Corporate interests vs. workers' dignity" 2. 23, Dec. 2005 //

"Janitors complain of toxic exposure" - Janitors at UM filed a safety complaint against university contractor UNICCO, saying they are getting sick from the chemicals they use on the job

3. 20, Dec. 2005 //

"Union boosters" - A group of University of Miami students has taken campus activism into a more confrontational direction -- trying to help unionize the workers who clean the school but don't make a living wage.

4.Oct. 2005 //

UM and the UNICCO Union Campaign: “Neutrality” or Corporate Irresponsibility? - By Richard Michael Fischl

The author is Professor of Law at the University of Miami and has been teaching labor and employment law courses at the University’s law school since 1983.

5.7, Oct. 2005 //

"Janitors at University of Miami protest wages, no health benefits"

Miami New Times 1.22, Dec. 2005 //

"Dangerous Work" - Clean up at UM and you just might get burned

2. 24, Nov. 2005 //

"Donna vs. Donna" - The UM president talks out of both sides of her yapper

The Hurricane 1.2, Dec. 2005 //

"Walking for Wages"

2.2, Dec. 2005 //

"Letter to the Editor" - UNICCO speaks out

3.11, Oct. 2005 //

"Living wages campaign faces new obstacles" - UNICCO workers gain support, continue struggle

4.16, Sept. 2005 //

"Students, employees demand living wages"

5.13, Sept. 2005 //

"Demand a living wage for our UNICCO workers"

6.30, Nov. 2001 //

"Student Government recommends living wage" - Campaign discussed at Wednesday night forum

7.13, Nov. 2001 //

"Proposal may change wage rates for UM" Other: Inside Higher ed 29, Nov. 2005 //

"Dirty Business?"

This is not including the original article that started it all from the Chornicle of Higher Learning. Thus, marginalizing the issue does not help.

Sorry, honey, but graduate students count. They're full-fledged students of the institution and free to participate in any student organizations they desire. It's 800 of 14,000 (a mere 5.7%) -- not 800 of 10,000 (which would still be only 8 percent, not the "near ten" percent you claimed -- a mere pittance of the student population). Like I said, using the quote that the movement is "relatively small" is not only accurate, but it's actually generous.

Additionally, the fact that the Herald article says "has" rather than "claims to have" does not verify the authenticity of STAND's claim to have 800 signatures on its petition. Like I said, if you're going to take STAND's claim to 800 signatures at face value, then you have to take Shalala's description at face value as well.

Finally, your claim that the section is somehow "pro-UM" is laughable to the point of absurdity. The section includes the following points that could be considered "favorable" to STAND: (1) a student group formed for the purpose of starting a living wage campaigns; (2) Refers to the Chronicle for Higher Education article and states that UM custodial workers ranked next to last out of 195 universities surveyed in terms of average pay; (3) States that UM is one of twelve universities whose service workers are paid beneath the federal poverty line; (4) States that the average pay of a custodial worker is $7.53; and (5) States the existence of a faculty resolution in support of the campaign.

The only points included in the section that could be even remotely considered "pro-UM" are (1) A statement of the University's position that it is a Unicco problem since the workers are paid by Unicco and that the University should remain neutral between the service provider and its workers and let the dispute reach its resolution through the union process; and (2) A quote about the size of the movement being "relatively small," which is not only accurate in light of the small number of signatures compiled in proportion to the student body, but actually quite generous to STAND.

If anything, the section is way too "pro-STAND!"

If you want to go around trying to promote and propagate STAND's viewpoint by passing out leaflets in the Breezeway, that's your prerogative. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not to be used as an instrument in that endeavor. Respect its neutrality.-Juicedpalmeiro 00:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This aritcle misses the point. The criticism doesnt seem to have anything to do with the union drive. nuetralityis pertaining to the union. The question that is being raised is this: Why won't UM fund a living wage? isnt it? I'm not sure how thats related to a union drive and shalala's nuetrality. Here are some reasons why neutrality is irrelevant.

First, the obvious. UM employs UNICCO, and it pays UNICCO. Also UM has a 30 day clause in the contract, thus UM can change the contract at any time, and unicco has stated thus.

Second, UNICCO has said several times that all UM would have to do is fund a living wage and they would change the contract (Miami Herald Oct. 07, 2005).

The claim of neutrality that the university uses is unconvincing, for the pay practices are the direct result of a policy vigorously pursued by UM officials. In the Chronicle of Higher Learning in 2001, which cited UM as the second to worst pay in the nation out of two hundred colleges, UM’s vice president of Business Services was quoted as saying

“We allow them to pay whatever they want to pay as long as they can recruit and retain workers, and still make a buck at the end of the day."

UNICCO’s Chairman of labor relations, when asked about UM, was quoted in the Herald

``The university puts these things out to bid. Everybody comes in with a price. We were probably the most cost effective for them, and that resulted in the wages we pay.

Both the faculty senate and student government voted for a living wage in 2001. In the faculty senate report on the issue, where the reasoning and expenditures were covered, it was stated that

           “it is UM has a civic responsibility to ensure that its contracting practices do not   contribute to the creation…of a class of working poor whose  income must be subsidized by local government and charitable resources  [so that they can] live healthy, dignified lives….Employing service contractors who pay sub-poverty level wages to literally hundreds of workers is fundamentally incompatible with the responsibilities of good citizenship”

It’s rather straight forward: Who pays UNICCO? Who hires UNICCO? Who asked for the lowest bidder? What did UNICCO say about funding?

For the reasons stated above, we might need to rethink how this issue is framed. It would be helpful, at least, to clarify what and why its UM's position (its gonna be too long, though, so maybe just a sentence, like "various student organizations (Outspoken, United Black Students, STAND) believe that it is the responisbilty of the administration to provide a living wage for the janitors"..However, the janitors are outsourced to UNicco, and Shalala feels that..."

I completly agree, i think we should chage it to represent the facts better.

The article as currently constituted is fine. It's factual, concise, and fair. There's no need to change it to suit a particular viewpoint.-Onward ND 04:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)+

I agree, but it wasnt clear what "the union process" was- so I placed a sentence before it that SEIU was organizing to be clear. (if its to much change it, but its not clear what we mean otherwise, so clarify it in some way). Also, it wasnt clear what Shalala was nuetral on- the union or a living wage?. I assumed that -since the article stated that it was a living wage movement- she's neutral on both issues -organizing and a living wage. When the faculty senate passed the resolution, student gov did to, thats important, but i dont know if it needed an extra three words. Also, i noted that it was Donna Shalala who said it was a small group- so I cited the source- I think its important to be clear who said what. Was a little muddled, but its clearer now, didnt add too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.231.163 (talk • contribs)

Agree, that it's fine too. I'm a student at UM right now and feel that the section accurately captures the situation. It seems someone from the student organization is trying to use the article as a vehicle to promote their interests. That's not what wiki is for. They're trying to make it a big thing and it's not. I'm not even sure if it warrants its own section within the article.-CaneMan 03:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

CaneMan, I am student here as well. Its very disapointing that you would delete my contribution to the discussion section, and place your own in its place. (readers, please visit the history section). Discusssion sections are not meant to be re-edited to format your feelings. I placed the exact reasoning on why the criticism section was changed (which had little to do with the above sections or comments), yet you did not adress any of them. Let me please clarify, as I only was trying to present factual information- and dont change the discussion section.

• "the union process" is brought up near the end, but the article does not elude to what union or what they are doing. The short sentence "SEIU began organizing UNICCO workers last semester" clarifies what union and where. Thats all. If there is another way you can clarify so people know what "the union process" means, please do so.
• The article continues to say that "Shalala is nuetral". But, what is she nuetral on? Does a living wage have anything to do with the union process? No, in fact, if you look at an op-ed in the Miami Herald from STAND, it clearly states that "union membership is not our goal"...and continues "regardless of union efforts, Donna Shalala can committ to funding a living wage". If you found the sentence I placed disagreeable, find another one to clarify what Shalala is nuetral on. Otherwise, no one knows what we're talking about- i thought it was a living wage.
• If you think that adding in the fact that student government voted on the issue is too much (check the hurrican's website in 2001, they did an article on it), fine- but explain why.
• I added in that (according to the article cited in the Herald) it was Donna Shalala who stated that the group was considered marginal. Probably factual, considering UM's history in activism (not high). Either way, don't you feel its important for people to know where the qoute comes from? You cant cite a qoute without citing the author of that qoute.

Adress these issues in the article to clarify, or get an arbitrator. Currently, the article is unclear, and less than ten words will make it clear. If wikipedia is a nuetral body (as its supposed to be), then we need to represent the facts, which means clarifying what Shalala is nuetral on, what "the union process" is, and citing the author of your qoutes from the people who said them.

Do not delete or replace the discussion section, please. I don't understand why anyone would do that, other than to be misrepresentative of the facts. If your have trouble with these issues, get an arbitrator. --Reefgecko 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Add me to the growing list of persons who think the treatment is more than satisfactory.-66.254.232.219 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing unclear about the article. In fact, I was shocked to find it was even given this much prominence. I can't begin to explain how minute the presence of this thing on campus is. I suggest we just eliminate the section altogether and fold it into the overview section with one sentence in passing, something like "a student group has recently begun a living wage campaign for service workers at the university." This thing ain't more than a fart in the wind on campus and really isn't deserving of its own section. Absent that course of action, though, leave it as is. It's at least factually correct right now. There's no need to insert propaganda.UMclassof06 04:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please leave blatant POV statements out. here is the evidence that it is an issue (instead of relying on your word, I'll go with whats in the news)

-Its been featured on the front page of the metro and state section of Miami Herlad the author said students were putting "unprecedented pressure" on Donna Shalala- This is one of the largest newspapers in circulation in the south east. So much so, in fact, that when the UM reached its goal of raising over 1 Billion dollars and hit the front page of the Herald, they included a segement on the living wage campaign here. Here are the other places its been featured as a news source.

Herald http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/

1. 8, Jan. 2006 (Op-ed)

2.(another article the same day)8, Jan. 2006

3. 20, Dec. 2005 (front page Metro and State)

4.Oct. 2005 (Op-Ed)

5.7, Oct. 2005

Miami New Times

1.22, Dec. 2005

2. 24, Nov. 2005

The Hurricane http://www.thehurricaneonline.com

1.2, Dec. 2005

2.2, Dec. 2005 (op-ed)

3.11, Oct. 2005

4.16, Sept. 2005 (op-ed)

5.13, Sept. 2005

6.30, Nov. 2001

7.2/10/06 - Op-ed

8.2/10/06

9.1/20/06 - Op-ed

I'm leaving out online sources, and recently within the last few weeks there has been some more coverage. There was also an issue in the Washington Times recently, January 26, 2006.[[7]]

Address the issues stated, and stop changing the conversation. All that I am asking is that it be clarified to state the author of a qoute, and clarify what "the union process is" for gods sake. Saying you think the article is good as is without addressing the criticism gets us no where. State specifically why Shalala should not be cited as the author of her own qoute and address the other issues. Thank you, --129.171.229.32 01:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No one addressed the issues stated, which were:

• Clarify what the ambiguous statement "the union process" means

This was done by including the sentence "Last semester, SEIU began organizing the janitors at UM."

• Clarify that it was Donna Shalala's quote at the end of the section. The direct quote from the article is "Shalala praises the activists, calling STAND a relatively small but vocal group."

this was done by saying "President Shalala regards"...

• Clarify the fact that student government and faculty senate voted on the issue in 2001

only adds two words, thus not lengthening the article too much, and is factual, look here [8]

All of this added literally no more than 15 words to the article, and it is now clear of factual errors and ambiguities.

Please do not, as previously done,

• simply delete my discussion section
• refuse to respond
• remove the article without discussion
• refuse to engage in the questions asked and respond with general statements

I just went through some pretty detailed stuff, and took the time to explain everything in plain words. If you have a problem, you can respond as I did, which was make a post, and wait a few days for someone to respond (I waited five). But please post first to ask questions, dont just assume your right. thank you--129.171.231.173 04:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's a clear consensus here on the issue against inclusion of your POV statements. Beating a dead horse by repeating the same tired and refuted arguments doesn't change things.-UMclassof06 07:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that you do not want to refute the arguments, but rather add general statements. It would help greatly if you could actually adress the criticism sections.

• Why not source the qoute to who actually made it? (the Herald article is really clear about who said it. and obviously the president is not a nuetral observer in a campaign that is directed to add pressure towards her. Nor is her voice that of the student body or community.)
• However, who can be considered more a voice of the student body is student goverment. And the fact that you don't think their own resolution (of which I cited in the last discussion section) is of relevance to the topic is of concern.

Adress the topics, and help us reach a resolution. I'm willing to work with you, but you have to actually give me an argument (so not "I feel that its ok"). Again:

Please do not, as previously done,

• simply delete my discussion section
• refuse to respond
• remove the article without discussion
• refuse to engage in the questions asked and respond with general statements

Please address the comments. And, i wont simply change it without discussion, I'm willing to talk about it. But you have to actually give an argument, not general statements about how you "feel". Thanks,--Reefgecko 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the appearance of a consensus: UMclassof06, CaneMan, and Juicedpalmeiro are all believed to be sock puppets of a banned user, user:Brian Brockmeyer, aka user:Flavius Aetius and user:Almeidaisgod. -Will Beback 21:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is just incredible. I’ve been trying to rationalize with the same person for the last semester, just under six different names, thinking that there were actually some legitimate students concerned about the issue and how their school was being portrayed. Not only that, but the original longer edit of the issue that went into more detail was in fact the consensus agreed upon originally- I'm not sure why it has to change at all from that.

I'm willing to keep it as is, (to help reach an agreement with you Brian), with the minor changes that were included in the last edit that I did, with a link to a longer article about the issue on another wikipedia page (it just got into the Washington Post, it seems deserving of an article). But I don't think, Brian, that you have much influence in this article otherwise, considering your breaking both spoken and unspoken rules about behavior in wikipedia. I think a day or two is reasonable time for you to respond.

As a note, though- I'm sure that you are more than aware that if you are in the law school, you can get in trouble with the bar for impersonating or portraying yourself as someone that you arn't. Please try to be careful next time, and more responsible. --Reefgecko 15:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Re. Ver. Ted. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum. Please quit with the POV pushing.Onward ND 04:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Another one for the sock list. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian, the only thing that is of warrant is the fact that you are still masquerading as someone else.[9]. Maybe it is a coincidence that you are a conservative, your an extreme baseball fan and you are a lawyer according to your...all of which a Brian Brockmeyer was on Amazon.com when posting. Not only that, but your current name already hasa history of unsocialable habits in wikipedia. This conversation is over --Reefgecko 06:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I left your edits in place Brian, with the clarification of points that I outlined earlier- even though you consistently break the policies of wiki. I don't think you can get a better deal than that.--129.171.198.105 21:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sideshow v. The Real Deal

In my humble opinion, far, far too much attention is being given to the Custodial Workers Strike in this article. This is a side-show that will be forgotten in a few years.

The work that the University has accomplished needs to be greatly expanded. I was disappointed that the Colleges and Schools are merely listed out with very little detail of their past and present accomplishments.--Hokeman 05:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is less info on the Duke rape scandal on Duke's page than this protest has on Miami's page, and the Duke story made national headlines. The only reason this strike is so prominent on the UM page is because it's current and because the people involved are adding it to the Wiki.

Please cut the strike article to a reasonable length, if you want to add more info then link to news articles covering the protests (from the school paper or the Miami Herald). Don't keep adding every new strike development to the wiki page, it's not that big of a fuckin' deal.

New Article for Strike

I propose the 2006 University of Miami Custodial Workers' Strike should get its own article. That way we can have just a link displayed in the university's article and have mucho space for details on the event itself's entry. Lawyer2b 20:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Description of UM Student Government Resolution

Since UM's student governments (undergraduate, graduate, and law school students) have all passed various resolutions on the living wage and strike issue, that should be reflected in 4.4, as opposed to only one resolution. Let's not represent things falsely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.103.161 (talk • contribs)

User:69.180.103.161,

• 1) It sounds like you are insinuating I purposely did not mention other SG resolutions. If so, I find that insinuation offensive and would like to remind you to please WP:AGF. I was not aware of any other SG resolutions when I added mention of the one I did.
• 2) While not accusing you of purposely POV editing, I noticed when you edited my description of the anti-union SG resolution you not only removed all details but even which side the resolution accused of being disruptive. Later, however when you added your mention of a "pro-worker" resolution you clearly described it as such and included mention of the details. That is not balanced.
• 3) You changed a description regarding what the students claim from "allege" to "report". To "report" sounds more objective and less an opinion open to questioning. I question whether that is appropriate. In particular your editing stands out because you changed a description regarding what the university claims from "maintained" to "alleged" and does not appear balanced.
• 4)Please try to remember to sign your talk-page edits. (e.g. the one above) Lawyer2b 03:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Lawyer2b, please don't bite the newcomer. I'm still learning, and wasn't aware how one could sign. I appreciate your posting this link, as well as to the point about good faith, which I'm as glad to give as to get. Will sign this when I've figured out how.

Just two points for now: First, I did change the verb regarding the sprinklers since I've seen this myself. (I work on campus and can view the sprinklers at all times. There is no expression of *opinion* in this case, it is a *fact* that the sprinklers have been on nearly 24/7.) Second, if you read the SG resolution, you'll see that it is not anti-union. It expresses concern at recent disruptions and names several groups. It isn't balanced to name only one of the groups in the text, so it seems to me one should either state something general, like I did, then provide the link to the details, or else one should be balanced about listing what's in the SG resolution in the article itself. What do you think would be better? I'm not in this for an edit war, and you seem like a very reasonable person, so I'm glad to be working on this with you. 69.180.103.161 14:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:69.180.103.161,

• 1)Thank you for your response. I apologize if my "bite" was harsh. You seem reasonable as well and I'm glad to be having a cooperative discussion. I try to WP:AGF and write WP:NPOV all the time but I have POV and make mistakes. Please do not be afraid to "call me on it" if you think I have; Everyone needs proofreaders.
• 2)While I appreciate your position at UM may afford you the ability to see things directly, please read WP:No original research for why you can't include what you see as part of a wikipedia article. Btw, that is mentioned in a helpful/instructional tone, as opposed to a condescending one.
• 3)You're right. The UMSG resolution I added to the article criticized the union (and other supporting organizations) for their actions, but it wasn't technically "anti-union". I characterized it as such because it leveled charges only at organizations on "their side". I believe resolutions ought to be summarized in the article with enough detail that a reader could understand their gist without having to go to another source. I think it was an excellent idea to include listing all the organizations named in the resolution.
• 4)Typically, users sign their edits simply by putting 4 tildes in a row "~~~~" immediately at the end of their last word. When you save your edit, wikipedia translates that into a name/time/date stamp like this: Lawyer2b 21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:129.171.226.238,

• 1)When you "tightened" the UMSG resolution you deleted the specific charges of which the organizations listed were accused. I think showing them and listing conditions the Graduate Student Senate recommended to UM in its resolution (a living wage, health insurance, and a fair workplace) is a good idea. Regardless, I feel very strongly that if the article lists one, it should list the other.
• 2)Please note that at the same time you deleted the information from the "second paragraph", you lengthened the first one and they did not, in fact, match. Lawyer2b 21:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear lawyer2b, Thanks for your commentary. My concern for balance is this: that we shouldn't treat paragraph one and paragraph two as balanced, since paragraph one refers to four resolutions, whereas paragraph two refers to one resolution. I'm a bit frustrated because I took the time to add links to a few resolutions in paragraph one (to match the link in paragraph two), but the user MiamiDolphins3 has just summarily removed the links I provided, leaving only the link to the most recent resolution. This is in no way balanced, and does not provide a neutral POV. You seem more familier with wikipedia than I am (I'm a novice). Can you recommend a course of action here? It seems to me that there should either be links to all resolutions, or links to none. But it would be unbalanced to provide links only for one 'side', as MiamiDolphins3 seems to be doing. Thanks for any help. 129.171.226.238 22:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:129.171.226.238,

• Just so you are aware, User:MiamiDolphins3 put back the links as well as the further detail regarding the SG resolution condemning vandalism, etc. I think that was a good.
• Regarding a course of action to deal with disputes, in my experience the first step is to do what you did, i.e. post a message on the talk page voicing your concern regarding balance/POV editing. Two things I highly recommend in addition are to always be polite (WP:AGF) when posting concerns and try not to revert what someone else did without at least posting an explanation why and/or trying to have a discussion beforehand. If a talk page discussion can't seem to find a mutually agreeable solution, then the matter can be escalated to a WP:RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and finally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. See WP:DR for more details. Lawyer2b 04:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Re the balance of the two paragraphs where one describes 4 resolutions and the other describes 1, I want to take a look at their contents but my first instinct is to say, why not break them up into four brief summaries? I'm too tired (yawn) to look at them right now but I will try to tomorrow. One seems to be missing a link to its hard copy. Can someone find that? Lawyer2b 04:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear lawyer2b, Thanks again for your involvement here. I noticed that MiamiDolphins3 put back the links, and agree that was a great response on his/her part. As far as balance, I agree with you completely that the four items should have separate lines. One of the temptations in this dispute is to imagine that there are two 'sides'. This is typical of the American political imagination (Republican or Democrat? liberal or conservative? Coke or Pepsi?) but doesn't really fit this situation (or any other, IMHO). Thus, I believe that the decision to lump this information into two paragraphs is itself ideological and not helpful. (I.e., that decision is not NPOV -- it's not as if the separate governing bodies all got together, on their 'side,' and agreed to all pass resolutions... they all did this independently, and that independence should be represented here.) Since the section is on govt responses, each governing body should get a bullet point or line, as you suggest. If you feel up to doing that editing (I'm drowning this week in papers to correct), great. If I can find other links to resolutions, I'll provide them. Sorry if this is gushing, but I really appreciate having someone with (probably) a different POV actually being reasonable, even very reasonable. (Check out comments on picketline for examples of unreasonable trolls I've been dealing with.) I'm sure you'll make a very good lawyer. And I meant that as a compliment. ;) 69.180.103.161 13:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Strike coverage

Just wanted to say that I think we all have done a very good job in providing good encyclopedic coverage of the strike, while maintaining good balance on an emotionally-charged issue. I'll continue to do my best, and I hope everyone else can, to keep the coverage informative and balanced. MiamiDolphins3 23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; things have gone very well the last few days, I think. 69.180.103.161 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I, too, agree.  :-) Lawyer2b 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox:Staff

That figure looks rather high. Arizona State University doesn't even have that many staff and it has 60,000 students. Besselfunctions 18:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that figure accounts for all employees, not only faculty LOuest

If one examines the Infobox University template, one soon would see that staff is meant to be "total full-time teaching staff/faculty)" rather than all employees. Besselfunctions

Original Miami is in Ohio

It might be nice to write some history about why Miami came to be and how two universities founded 120 years apart carry a similar name. Miami University was founded by the US Congress and President Washington I believe. Might be interesting if someone could include the initial communication between the founders of UM and Miami University. Anyone else??

It's a coincidence. Both schools take their names for local geography. Those names are based on local native American tribes, both happened to be called Miami. -James Howard (talk/web) 22:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 custodial workers' strike

The strike page appears to be having some font format problems today, I notice. I'll try to get it fixed for us. MiamiDolphins3 17:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I just moved this text from the article page: "The issues leading up to the strike, and the perceived mismanagement of them by university officials, resulting in condemnations of UM President Shalala by The university's handling of the strike itself also drew strong criticisms from community, labor and strike leaders." I think that the linked article presents the relevant information. I kept some of what MiamiDolphins3 wrote, folding it into an existing paragraph. But I think that this sentence feels like POV. That is, it suggests to a reader how s/he should interpret the strike, and that seems dangerous to me. By the way, I removed this even though the text is close to my own POV. What do others think about the need to give more of a summary of the strike on the main UM page? Universitytruth 16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

This article is fraught with Weasel words in many sections. See WP:WEASEL

The University of Miami (commonly referred to as UM)

UM can be the University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Mexico, etc. Univ of Miami may be locally referred to as UM but "UM" is certainly is not nationally or internationally commonly known as University of Miami.

The University of Miami is typically ranked as one of the top academic institutions in the United States.

This sentence should be a model example of weasel wording. The next sentence goes on to state that US News ranks Univ of Miami as ranked 55th overall. Being ranked 55th out of 248 national universities is not "one of the top academic institutions in the United States." Using a sports analogy, being the 55th best college football team does not qualify that team as as one of the top football programs in the United States.

The University is often referred to simply as "The U,"

According to who? A google search returns University of Arizona before Univ of Miami.

Miami has been particularly dominant in football

Another model use of weasel words. The next sentence stating five national championships sufficiently exemplifies that the Univ of Miami football team has been successful.

With four of Miami's five national championships coming in an eight year span from 1983 to 1991, that period in college football is sometimes dubbed "The Decade of Dominance."

Source and who refers to that period by that title? Local fans? Alumni?

Miami is also well-known for producing NFL talent.

Well known by whom?

Miami holds the record for most players selected in the first round of the NFL Draft (six in 2004), as well as most first round draft picks in a two-year period (11 in 2003 and 2004) and most first round draft picks in a three-year period (15 from 2002 to 2004). Since the 2002 draft, an astounding 42 Hurricanes have been selected in the NFL Draft and Miami holds an ongoing record for the most consecutive NFL drafts (12) with a first-round draft pick.

Needs source.

Miami has one of the top baseball programs in the nation.

Another model of weasel words. Again the next sentence adequately states that the Univ of Miami has a successful baseball team.

---

One way to deal with the weaseliness or peacockiness of using "UM" is simply to use it as an acronym in the article. That should reasonably address the argument "Univ of Miami may be locally referred to as UM but "UM" is certainly is not nationally or internationally commonly known as University of Miami." Note that the University of Kentucky wikipage does the same thing (i.e., uses the acronym UK throughout). Please don't revert before discussing. 65.34.154.254 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

---

In the process of editing the article, I had changed several of the uses of "UM" in the article into "University of Miami." It adds more variety to the read, instead of seeing "UM" over and over, again. Ryulong 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Academic Ranking

UM is ranked 55 out 248 in the national universities categories is the most accurate statement. Stating that UM is 55th out all universities in the US is false. US News and World Report has four ranking categories for colleges: national, master's, liberal arts and comprehensive. You will not see Villanova, Providence, Williams, Amherst, Wellesley etc., all which are superior academic institutions, ranked with national universities.

Here are the four categories, per US News and World Report which are following the categories defined by the Carnegie Foundation.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/ranknatudoc_brief.php

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankumregion_brief.php

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/ranklibartco_brief.php

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankccregion_brief.php

Nowhere in the description of the national universities categories does it claim that it is the top 200 plus universities. If you disagree, then I recommend that academic rankings be removed from the title summary as advised in the academic boosterism wikipedia guideline.

The schools you reference are not considered universities; they are appropriately classified as liberal arts colleges because of their more narrow academic programs. Your description of them as "superior" to UM is suggestive of your own pov biases. The paragraph is undeniably a technically accurate of the magazine's ranking. Labeling it (correctly) 55th is hardly boosterism. Additionally, not all universities made their top list; that doesn't mean they weren't evaluated and excluded as top universities. MiamiDolphins3 17:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

MiamiDolphins3, I think you misread what the anon. editor said: s/he said that various colleges were superior, not that they were superior to UM. Please read more carefully before accusing others of making POV statements, etc. Two other points: (1) I think the number 55 should stay, as long as we can agree on how it is represented (latest version seems good). (2) The statement "UM has been typically ranked among the top 100 academic institutions in the United States" does seem to be boosterism because unsourced. Can someone research this? First of all, who is doing that ranking? Is this meant to refer to prior US News & WR issues? If so, then say so. Or is this meant to refer to other ranking systems? If so, say so. I don't think this statement can remain without some kind of research like I've suggested. Would do it myself today, but have to actually get back to work! Will look into this in a day or two unless someone else does first. Cheers, Universitytruth 17:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 UM custodial strike section

I think one sentence or paragraph is needed in the strike section that justifies the continued presence of this section on the main UM page and explains the importance of the issue so that it is not a continued source of VfDs or deletions, as has been the case. When I review the strike article and think about the issue, it seems to me the biggest issue here was the negative impact it had on the UM administration's credibility. Clearly, there were unaddressed issues before the strike that could have possibly prevented the whole thing (and a study that revealed all the issues that were at the core of the strikers' demands)--and then the administration's management of the strike itself (the sprinkler episode, etc. etc.) that were another source of serious criticism. These are the things that make this not just "another strike", so I'd propose putting in something like I originally inserted a few days ago. I think that would explain to the casual reader the importance of the strike so it does not look out of place and does not come across as a routine, minor and insignificant development. Just a suggestion. MiamiDolphins3 15:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to add something about the continuing importance of the strike. I see what you're saying about lingering criticism of the administration, but I don't see that as the most prominent point. And the sprinkler and other episodes seem to be rather "run of the mill" in terms of administration actions against striking students. What makes this strike notable, as per VfD discussion, is that it took place in S. Florida (typically anti-union), that a hunger strike was involved, and that a supermajority was required (and gotten). But I think that our Derek Jeter fan will continue to vote for deletion until his account is suspended, at which point he'll open another account and do the same thing, thus breaking the wikipedia "Don't be a dick" [10]rule. But we'll see. Thanks again for keeping an eye on all of this. Best, 129.171.226.193 18:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)