text:
Cavendish, Prince Edward Island

Cavendish is an unincorporated rural community in the township of Lot 23, Queens County, Prince Edward Island, Canada.

The community's primary industries are tourism and agriculture supporting a very small year-round population. Cavendish is the largest seasonal resort area in Prince Edward Island with an average daily population in the months of July and August of approximately 7,500 residents. It was also home to Lucy Maud Montgomery, writer of Anne of Green Gables (1908). She said she loved sitting by a window and writing while looking out the windows onto the fields of Cavendish, which was the inspiration for the book's setting of Avonlea.

Geography
Cavendish is located northwest of North Rustico and east of Stanley Bridge in the central part of the province on the north shore, fronting the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Administratively, it is part of the Resort Municipality of Stanley Bridge, Hope River, Bayview, Cavendish and North Rustico (37.74 km2).

History
Cavendish was founded in 1790 by three families who emigrated from Scotland – the MacNeils, the Clarks and the Simpsons. Lacking a harbour, Cavendish was primarily a small farming community throughout the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries.

Cavendish traces its name to Field Marshal Lord Frederick Cavendish (son of the 3rd Duke of Devonshire), Colonel of the 34th (Cumberland) Regiment of Foot. It was likely given by local resident William Winter, an ex-British Army officer, who named the community in honour of his patron.

Author Lucy Maud Montgomery was born in nearby New London during the late Victorian era, and after her mother's death was brought to Cavendish to be raised in the home of her maternal grandparents, who had a house and small farm immediately east of the Cavendish United Presbyterian Cemetery at the intersection of the Cavendish Road and Cawnpore Lane. Montgomery would also frequently visit her cousins, the MacNeill family, who owned a farm named Green Gables located west of the intersection. She would later find work in the community with the federal Post Office Department as a postmaster at the Cavendish Post Office. Montgomery's experiences in the community formed a strong impression on her and she would later include much of her experiences in this part of rural Prince Edward Island at the turn of the 20th century in the literary blockbuster Anne of Green Gables and subsequent works.

Prior to Montgomery's writings, Cavendish's primary claim to fame came on July 22, 1883, when the three-masted world-record holding clipper ship Marco Polo grounded and broke apart on Cavendish Beach.

Following the critical acclaim of Montgomery's writing, as well as coincident with the increase in vehicle-based tourism throughout North America during the first half of the century, Cavendish began to evolve into primarily a resort community.

In 1937, Prince Edward Island National Park was established along 60 kilometres (40 miles) of the province's Gulf of St. Lawrence shoreline – part of the park expropriation also included the MacNeill family's Green Gables farm. The national park also boasted many of Prince Edward Island's best beaches, of which Cavendish Beach was one of the most popular. To increase the tourist draw to the area, the national park also developed an 18-hole golf course and opened the Green Gables farmhouse for tours. The site of Montgomery's childhood home is also a popular tourist destination. Subsequent development between the 1950s-1990s saw motels, campgrounds, amusement parks and other attractions, shopping facilities, and bars and restaurants built. During any given week in July and August, the community's population expands as tens of thousands of tourists flock to the national park and local attractions.

In 1990, Cavendish became part of the Municipality of Stanley Bridge, Hope River, Bayview, Cavendish and North Rustico.

Points of interest

 * Cavendish Beach - A beach located in Prince Edward Island National Park.
 * Prince Edward Island National Park - One of Canada's national parks containing Cavendish Beach.

In popular culture
Cavendish is a 2019 CBC sitcom set in this rural area.

External references

 * Cavendish Statistics
 * Cavendish History at ElectricScotland.com
 * PeiOnline.com, PEI Online Tourism Information

title: Cavendish, Prince Edward Island


text:
John Belling

John Belling (7 October 1866–28 February 1933) was a cytogeneticist who developed the iron-acetocarmine staining technique which is used in the study of chromosomes.

Born in Aldershot in England in 1866, the son of John Belling (1827–1884) and Lydia Ann née Tart (1842–1915), he studied at Stonehouse Grammar School, King's College London and University College London, and then entered Mason College (which later became the University of Birmingham) where he received his BSc in 1894. He married Hannah Sewall in June 1919 in Forest Glen, Maryland, USA and received an honorary DSc in 1922 from the University of Maine in recognition of his work.

In his work with Albert F. Blakeslee at Cold Spring Harbor on Datura (1920–1927) and at the University of California, Berkeley (1928–1933) Belling used plants such as lilies and hyacinths to demonstrate that segments between non-homogeneous chromosomes can interchange. He was able to make accurate estimates of chromosome numbers and proposed that chromomeres, the small condensations along the chromosome, were individual genes.

Throughout his career Belling had many mental health problems that required frequent hospitalisation. He died suddenly on 28 February 1933 in Alameda in California, USA.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: John Belling


text:
Florida State Road 589

State Road 589 (SR 589), also known as the Veterans Expressway and Suncoast Parkway, is a controlled-access toll road near the Florida Gulf Coast. Maintained and operated by Florida's Turnpike Enterprise, this 68 mi transportation corridor extends from State Road 60 in Tampa, north to State Road 44 near Lecanto. The Veterans Expressway was built to accommodate the increasing commuter traffic in the Tampa-St. Petersburg metropolitan area, with the Suncoast Parkway opening in 2001, extending from near the northern terminus of the Veterans Expressway to U.S. Route 98, with a possible northern extension to U.S. Route 19/U.S. Route 98 in Crystal River in Citrus County in the planning and development stages. As of February 28, 2022, Phase I of the extension is now open between US 98 and Florida State Road 44. Phase II, which would further extend the highway to County Road 486, is undergoing the design phase.

Veterans Expressway
The Veterans Expressway extends 15 mi from State Road 60 (the Courtney Campbell Causeway) west of Tampa International Airport to Van Dyke Road in northern Hillsborough County. The southern two miles (3 km), between Courtney Campbell Causeway and Hillsborough Avenue (on the west side of Tampa International Airport), upgraded Eisenhower Boulevard to expressway standards with frontage roads, is tolled when entering southbound from Hillsborough Avenue, and when exiting northbound onto Hillsborough Avenue, else not tolled. North of Hillsborough Avenue, the remaining 13 mi are tolled.

Between Courtney Campbell Causeway and Van Dyke Road, intermediate interchanges are provided at Independence Parkway, Memorial Highway, Hillsborough Avenue, Waters Avenue, Anderson Road, Linebaugh Avenue/Wilsky Boulevard, Gunn Highway, Ehrlich Road, Hutchison Road and Dale Mabry (known as the spur). There are two mainline SunPass gantries (Anderson and Sugarwood) and six ramp plazas. The Veterans Expressway converted to all-electronic, cashless tolling in 2014. Drivers must have a SunPass or they will be billed with TOLL-BY-PLATE. The "N minus 1" formula is used for multiaxle vehicles on all Turnpike facilities except for the ticket system on the Turnpike mainline and the T ramp on the I-4 Connector. N minus 1 may be calculated by counting the number of axles, minus 1, times the passenger car toll rate at each plaza.

Suncoast Parkway
The 55-mile-long Suncoast Parkway (SR 589) proceeds north from the Veterans Expressway to SR 44 in Citrus County, Florida, near Lecanto.

The Suncoast Parkway is the first Florida's Turnpike Enterprise toll road to feature open road tolling. The three mainline toll plazas on the Suncoast Parkway feature bypasses where those paying cash remain on the mainline and stop at the toll plaza while those with Sunpass or related transponders exit the mainline roadway, bypass the toll plaza and then re-enter the mainline. This differs from other open road tolling locations in Florida where transponder users remain on the mainline and bypass toll booths built to the side.

Suncoast Trail
As part of the Suncoast Parkway project, a multi-use paved recreational trail called the Suncoast Trail was constructed parallel to the western side of the highway, and opened along with the Parkway itself in 2001. The trail begins at Lutz-Lake Fern Road (Exit 16), and continues north for 55 mi to the highway's terminus at State Road 44. Four miles north of State Road 54, an additional 6.5-mile paved bicycle trail connects the Suncoast Trail to the J. B. Starkey Wilderness Park in New Port Richey. Use of the Suncoast Trail is free, but in late 2010, a $2.00 parking fee was implemented at the Lutz-Lake Fern trailhead (Hillsborough County). At the same time, Pasco County implemented a parking fee, but it was rescinded in late 2017. Motor vehicles are prohibited along the entire trail, except for Park Rangers, and other authorized vehicles.

For most of its length, the Suncoast Trail stays close to the parkway, separated by fences, grass, and in some places concrete barriers. Bridges that cross rivers and streams were built with enough width to accommodate trail users. Where roads cross above the parkway, particularly north of State Road 52, the trail briefly strays from the parkway, allowing users to cross the intersecting road at-grade.

Pedestrian and cyclist crossing of minor cross streets is regulated by posted signs. At busier intersections, pedestrian crossing signals are part of the traffic signal systems already in place. The notable exception is at the State Road 50 interchange near Brooksville, where a dedicated overpass has been constructed to cross State Road 50, approximately 500 ft west of the main parkway.

Tolls
The Veterans Expressway is an all-electronic toll road and does not accept cash. It ceased cash collection in June 2014.

The Suncoast Parkway was the first of Florida's Turnpike Enterprise expressways to feature open-road tolling when it opened in 2001. However, unlike roads that were later converted into open-road tolling, the SunPass transponder users must turn their vehicle onto an off-ramp while cash users stay on the main highway route at toll plazas. During a resurfacing project in 2012-2013, the lanes were reconfigured, and signage modified, to give the outer SunPass lanes the appearance of being the primary route. Access to the booths on the inner part of the roadway, was reduced to a single lane.

Toll rates were adjusted statewide on October 29, 2017. In January 2020, the Suncoast Parkway stopped accepting cash payment of tolls, converting fully to SunPass and Toll-By-Plate.

Veterans Expressway
The Veterans Expressway is the north-south portion of what was the Northwest Hillsborough Expressway, originally proposed in the 1960s as the northwest beltway around Tampa's outer limits. As the plans finalized, the communities along the route grew, leading to rising land costs and opposition to the expressway dividing the towns. Lutz was especially vocal, eventually rallying state politicians to cancel the expressway construction altogether. By the mid-1980s, the expressway was broken in two segments, the Veterans Expressway and the Lutz Expressway. In the early 1990s, the Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority began to build the Veterans Expressway, but was depleted of funds, leading to Florida's Turnpike Enterprise purchasing the right of way using the existing design to complete construction of the expressway. State Road 589 was designated the Veterans Expressway in 1992 and was completed in October 1994.

From its opening in 1994, the Veterans Expressway saw very little changes in its roadway configuration. When the Suncoast Parkway was constructed in 1998 (through 2001), the Van Dyke Road interchange was reconfigured.

Former sections
With the completion of the Suncoast Parkway in 2001, the stub of the Veterans Expressway from Exit 13 to Dale Mabry Highway was designated State Road 568.

Originally, State Road 589 was concurrent with State Road 60 between Exit 2A and Exit 1, then extended to West Spruce Street and Boy Scout Boulevard. These roads were re-designated as SR 616.

South of the southern terminus, SR 589 was planned to be branched off onto the West Crosstown Expressway and become part of the Lee Roy Selmon Expressway, at the Selmon Expressway's Exit 4. The West Crosstown was canceled due to a freeway revolt, and the SR 589 and SR 449 designations were eliminated from the Lee Roy Selmon Expressway.

Suncoast Parkway
Construction began on the Suncoast Parkway in 1998, and opened in 2001 in two stages at a cost of $507 million. The section from the Veterans Expressway to State Road 50 opened in February 2001 and the section from State Road 50 north to U.S. Route 98 opened in August 2001.

Tampa Airport interchanges
In August 2005, a massive reconstruction project began on the interchanges between I-275 and Memorial Highway, near Tampa International Airport after being shelved for over fifteen years. The project consisted of a four-level stack interchange at the Spruce St Interchange, a three-level interchange at the Courtney Campbell Causeway, and an extensive auxiliary exit ramp system stretching from Independence Pkwy to just north of I-275. The first phase, dealing with the northbound lanes to the airport was completed on March 31, 2010, at a cost of $202 million. The second phase, which upgrades the southbound lanes, is currently in the early design stages and there is currently no timetable set for construction.

The project has resulted in better access from southbound Veterans Expressway to the Courtney Campbell Causeway on State Road 60, the Airport to I-275 and the WestShore Business District. According to the Florida Department of Transportation, the tallest flyover is 2096 ft long and 75 ft high at its peak. As of August 2007 video cameras have been added on the road every 10th of a mile down the span of the toll road.

Widening of the Veterans Expressway, All-Electronic Tolling, and Express Lanes
This improvement project, which began May 2013, widens 11 miles (17.7 km) of the Veterans Expressway between Memorial Hwy and Van Dyke Rd. The improvements, which are divided into five separate projects, double the capacity of the highway from four to eight lanes. Part of the widening improvements include reconstruction of 38 existing bridges and the building of three new bridges.

The widening project also includes a concurrent project to convert the section from Memorial Highway to Van Dyke Road to all-electronic tolling (AET) providing non-stop travel. In addition, the conversion of the Suncoast Parkway to AET will occur concurrent with the expansion into Citrus County, thereby providing enhanced benefits to drivers using the entire Toll 589 corridor. The project introduces Express Lanes (also known as Managed Lanes) to the region. A congestion management tool (which is already in place along parts of I-95 and I-595 in Miami), Express Lanes offer motorists a choice that provides an opportunity for a faster through-trip, with greater trip reliability and safety. All-Electronic tolling is being implemented in segments while the widening project continues. This latter process began in June, 2014.

The new Linebaugh southbound on-ramp opened in early summer 2015. The Anderson Road exit was reconstructed to accommodate widening the mainline roadway under the bridge. The southbound on-ramp opened in spring 2015, with the northbound off-ramp following by early summer. On the night of June 13, 2014, the segment between Memorial Highway and Gunn Highway converted to All-Electronic Toll Collection. On September 5, 2014, the segment between Gunn Highway and Hutchison Road was converted.

On December 9, 2017, the first phase of the Express Lanes, between Gunn Hwy and Hillsborough Ave, opened to traffic. The lanes will not be subjected to the variable rate toll until closer to the time that the second phase from Gunn Hwy to Dale Mabry opens.

While the reconstruction of the Veterans wrapped up in 2018, the Florida's Turnpike Enterprise still has not activated variable tolling for the express lanes. As of October, 2021, the agency is converting the lanes to general purpose "Thru Lanes", similar to that of portions of the Beachline Expressway. Lane dividers will remain intact, but signage will change to reflect the conversion.

Suncoast Parkway extension
A planned expansion project of the Suncoast Parkway will feature a 13-mile extension from US 98 to State Road 44 in Citrus County, providing the Parkway's extension into that county.

The project follows a northerly route, paralleling US 19 and CR 491. Three interchanges are proposed: completion of the US 98 interchange, a new interchange at Cardinal Road and a partial interchange at SR 44. The extension will be an all-electronic, cashless toll facility.

The extension will be implemented under two separate projects to be let as design-bid-build contracts in 2016. Estimated project costs are $135 million, opening on February 28, 2022.

The original expansion plans featured an additional 15-mile extension from SR 44 to US 19; however, this portion remains unfunded with no timetable for its beginning.

Possible Extension towards Jacksonville
FDOT is currently evaluating the possibility of further extending the Suncoast Parkway to create a seamless, limited access, tolled highway between Tampa and Jacksonville. The highway would be able to connect to I-75 either near the Ocala/Gainesville area, or near Lake City, then possibly I-10, the First Coast Expressway, and/or I-95 as it enters the Jacksonville metro area. Currently, those wishing to make a trip between Tampa and Jacksonville can use I-4 to I-95, I-75 to I-10, or various surface roads such as U.S. 301.

Criticism
The Suncoast Parkway (both the existing route and the newly opened extension) has raised criticism from several opponents.

Citrus County residents believe that the extension would disrupt the quiet, undisturbed sections of Citrus County and bring forth more urban sprawl to the county. Furthermore, impacted residents fear that the parkway alignments come too close to their residences and will cause excessive noise and decreased property values.

Historic preservation groups oppose the extension as the planned alignment would essentially wipe out the Etna Turpentine Camp Archeological Site, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, a planned alignment threatens an underground water supply for the Homosassa Special Water District.

Furthermore, the toll estimates for the original Suncoast Parkway have fallen far below expectations (actual revenues USD$22M vs. USD$150M estimated), leading Tampa Bay Times columnist Craig Pittman to ask why an extension is needed on a road that has had far fewer users than planned.

title: Florida State Road 589


text:
File talk:Alleycat.gif

Width of this image
Why is this image 336 pixels wide? It seems that 8 pixels have been spuriously added to both sides, or did the Atari really have a 336x240 pixel screen resolution? — Timwi 15:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: File talk:Alleycat.gif


text:
Marystown

Marystown is a town in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, with a population of around 5,000. Situated 306 km from the province's capital, St. John's, it is on the Burin Peninsula. Until the early 1990s, its economy was largely based on shipbuilding, and it is due in part to this that the town experienced a population increase of 295% in just over a decade. The town was also dependent on the fish plant for employment.

Though the shipyard still holds a presence in the town, residents have had to look elsewhere for economic subsistence in the last decade or so. The closure of the fish plants in Newfoundland has also had its hand in the decline in economic subsistence. Mortier Bay also served a strategic role during World War II, and was the site selected to evacuate the Royal Family and regroup the British Navy in the event of German invasion of Britain. Currently fish farming and the shipyard remain important to the local economy; in fact, construction of the world's largest fish hatchery, the Grieg NL project, began at the town in 2019.

Geography
Marystown lies on hummocky pyroclastic volcanic rock of mixed composition. This rock is overlain by very stony sandy loam glacial till which has a classic podzol soil profile in undisturbed areas; this is named as Toslow soil association. The vegetation at the time of the soil survey was a barren dominated by sphagnum mosses, heath-type shrubs, and mountain alder. Forest vegetation, mostly of coniferous trees, has developed in many areas around town as can be seen on Google Street View.

Demographics
In the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, Marystown had a population of $5,204$ living in $2,328$ of its $2,609$ total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of $5,316$. With a land area of 62.23 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

Religion
While the town contains a diverse mixture of churches of varying denominations, the town is almost entirely Christian. The information presented from a 2001 census from Statistics Canada indicates that 68% of the population is Roman Catholic.

 * Roman Catholic; Sacred Heart Parish
 * United; Calvary United Church
 * Anglican; St. Michael's Church;St. Mary's Church
 * Salvation Army; Faith and Hope Corps
 * Pentecostal; Calvary Pentecostal Church
 * Seventh-Day Adventist; Marystown Seventh-Day Adventist Church

Sacred Heart Parish
Established in 1910, the original edifice, constructed in the early 1900s had to be reconstructed in the late 1970s due to a fire. In more recent years, the church has received much attention from the news when a family of illegal immigrants from Israel resided there as a place of sanctuary. Alexi and Angela Portnoy and their five children (the three youngest of whom were born in Canada) stayed in the church's basement for a total of 962 days while seeking citizenship status. The family was ultimately deported to Israel, but their supporters vowed to try to help the family to return.

Calvary Pentecost Church
Establishment of the church began in 1956. It was not until 1958 that the first Pentecost church in Marystown was officially completed. Since then there have been three Pentecost churches erected in the Marystown area: the original edifice in 1958, the second in 1974, and the current church that was built in 1995.

Seventh-Day Adventist Church
It wasn't until the 1970s that the Seventh Day Adventists established a significant population in Marystown. The construction of the first church began in 1985 along with a Seventh-Day school. Though the construction was completed much earlier, 1987 denotes the official church opening.

Workforce
By 2018, it was recognized that the region exhibited significant unemployment, but also that the potential workforce was not sufficient to support shipyard and aquaculture expansions envisioned in subsequent years. This led to a call for loosening immigration regulations so that the workforce could be expanded with immigrant workers.

Shipyard workers are represented by at least two unions, Marine Workers Federation - Unifor Local 20 and the Marine Office and Technical Employees Unit.

Shipbuilding and aquaculture
Shipbuilding began in Marystown not long after it was settled in the early 1800s. The earliest records of shipbuilding in the area date to 1908, and Marystown's first shipyard was constructed in 1918 north of the town.

The Marystown Co-operative shipyard opened in 1939 was destroyed by fire in 1941; originally committed to building fishing trawlers, it was converted to minesweeper construction for World War II. Work at the site began in 1938 when the Newfoundland Commission of Government established the first government shipyard. The Marystown Shipyard was established by the Newfoundland government in 1959 for the construction of longliners, "motor-powered decked vessels ranging from 35 to 65 feet in length." This facility was operated as a Crown Asset until the 1980s, when it was privatized.

Construction of a nearby additional shipbuilding facility began in 1966 and it was opened in 1967 by the shipping company Canadian Vickers, initially for the construction and repair of fishing vessels. This facility has changed owners and names over the years; the initial owner was Newfoundland Marine Works Ltd., until 1973. Ownership changed hands to Marystown Shipping Enterprises Ltd., which held title until 1978, when ownership changed to Marystown Shipyard Ltd. In response to a decline in the cod fishery industry, the Newfoundland government refurbished the shipyard in 1992. Ownership left Canada when the American company Friede Goldman Ltd. bought the facility in 1998, and remained in American hands when ownership changed again in 2002 to Kiewit Offshore Services Ltd. By 2019, the shipyard had been idle for four years and was acquired by Marbase Marystown Inc. (usually just Marbase), under a 20-year lease with the intention of establishing a service hub supporting regional aquaculture, the first of its kind in Canada. Marbase is a partnership between one Newfoundland businessman, Paul Antle, and the Norwegian company Amar Group AS.

In 2019, Marbase Cleanerfish Ltd., began work on a commercial lumpfish hatchery in Marystown, with an anticipated customer base of Atlantic salmon farm operators. As of 2020, government approval of the work in relation to environmental impact had not yet been completed.

Fish plant
For many years the fish plant in Marystown created hundreds of jobs in the small town. Originally operated by Fishery Products International (FPI) the plant was sold to Ocean Choice International (OCI) in 2007. In 2011, the plant employed roughly 240 people seasonally. In November 2011, provincial government-appointed auditors backed up claims by OCI that they were losing millions of dollars each year operating the fish plant. On 2 December 2011, the company announced that they would permanently close their Marystown and Port Union fish plants and invest money into other plants in the province. Demolition of the plant began in 2015.

Attractions
Attractions to the town include:
 * Marystown Heritage Museum
 * The Shrine of Marymount (statue of the Virgin Mary)
 * Marystown Public Library
 * MADD Burin Peninsula Memorial Gardens

Shrine of Marymount
The Shrine of Marymount, or The Marymount as it is locally referred to, is one of the largest Marian statues erected in Newfoundland. It stands at fifteen feet tall, and overlooks the entirety of Marystown, sitting at one of the highest points in the area.

Sports
Despite being in a province reporting one of the highest obesity rates in Canada, Marystown has sport enthusiasts in disciplines including softball, soccer, swimming, track and field and hockey. Marystown has many attractions for both residents and visitors:

 * Swimming pool
 * Professional track and field complex (home of the Mariners Athletics Club {MAC})
 * Two softball diamonds: The Kinsmen Field and The Lions Field
 * Soccer pitch (home to the 2004 Challenge Cup Champions "Marystown United")
 * Ice rink/live entertainment complex
 * Scenic walking trails
 * YMCA facility

The urban centre is surrounded by rolling hills and densely wooded areas, as a result Marystown is frequented by hunting, fishing, camping and ATV enthusiasts. Also including a work-in-progress splash pad.  As of 2021  at the Marystown track and field complex.

Education
Marystown and surrounding area is home to four public schools, Marystown Central High School, Sacred Heart Academy, Pearce Junior High, and Donald C. Jamieson Academy. Post secondary institutions include two public trade-colleges, College of the North Atlantic, and Keyin College.

Marystown's public schools are serviced under the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District.

Radio
Marystown currently receives numerous radio stations including:
 * FM 88.3: CHCM ("VOCM"), news/talk/classic hits
 * FM 90.3: CBNM, CBC Radio One
 * FM 91.7: CBN-FM-5, CBC Radio 2
 * FM 96.3: CHOZ ("OZFM"), Top 40
 * FM 99.5: VOAR-2-FM ("Lighthouse FM"), Christian radio/music

Television

 * Channel 5 - CBC Television
 * Channel 11 - NTV

Print
Marystown is the home of The Southern Gazette, a newspaper that covers the entire Burin Peninsula.

Notable people

 * Kaetlyn Osmond (skating arena and part of route 210 named in her honour)

title: Marystown


text:
Emmanuel Wamala

Emmanuel Wamala (born 15 December 1926) is a Ugandan Catholic prelate who served as the Archbishop of Kampala from 1990 to 2006. He was made a cardinal in 1994.

Priesthood
Wamala was born in Kamaggwa Village, Lwaggulwe Parish, in Masaka District, Uganda. He was ordained, on 21 December 1957, chapel of the Pontifical Collegio Urbaniano, Rome, by Pietro Sigismondi. In the same ceremony Stephen Fumio Hamao, future cardinal, was also ordained. He studied in Rome from 1957 to 1960 and had further studies in Uganda and United States, as well as pastoral ministry in the diocese of Masaka, from 1960 to 1981. He obtained a Bachelor of Theology. During this time he also served as inspector of diocesan schools and faculty member of the Minor Seminary of Bukalasa, chaplain and faculty member, and rector of University of Makerere. He served as vicar general of diocese of Masaka from 1974 to 1981. He was created Chaplain of His Holiness on 25 May 1977.

Cardinal
He was one of the cardinal electors who participated in the 2005 papal conclave that selected Pope Benedict XVI, but has lost the right to participate in any future conclave as a result of passing his eightieth birthday. He was succeeded in Kampala by Archbishop Cyprian Kizito Lwanga.

Wamala is a Patron of the African Prisons Project, an international non-governmental organisation with a mission to bring dignity and hope to men women and children in African prisons through health, education, justice and reintegration. On 9 October 2021 Wamala attended the burial in Uganda of Msgr. Henry Kyabukasa, his 92 year old younger brother. Kyabukasa was a former Prelate of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Masaka and died at Villa-Maria Hospital in Kalungu district on 6 October 2021.

At the installation of the new Archbishop of Kampala Paul Ssemogerere on 25 January 2022, the congregation was informed that Wamala was unable to physically attend the ceremony as he was weak. Wamala's last public appearance was on 21 November 2021, at St Noa Mawaggali Cathedral in the Kiyinda-Mityana diocese, where he marked his 40th episcopal anniversary.

title: Emmanuel Wamala


text: User talk:81.156.148.70

title: User talk:81.156.148.70


text:
Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism

Mythos / Reputation
I've been trying to figure out what's really going on here, and not just here but in general in the whole "seelectivity" business in college guides and so on. Here's what I think: It is not seemly and polite to talk about a college's "mythos," but that's what's going on. One of the important things about Harvard is that "Harvard Aura" and the same is true of other "selective" institutions. You go there, you know you're hanging out with future Nobel Prize winners, or at least with people who can plausibly sound like future Nobel Prize winners. And this is known in the public at large.

So my question is, how can we talk about this in wikipedia? Some colleges have "Wobegon University in popular culture" sections,but these are mostly lists of mentions on TV. Seems to this is the place to mention "aura", and in some cases there's specific examples to bring up: Robert Pirsig and the University of Chicago, Paper Chase and Yale. For smaller schools, not so much. I went to Carleton College, which has the reputation as the highest-caliber college in Minnesota. But there's no movie or popular book that backs this up, and no news outlet wants to tick off alumni of other places unnecessarily by saying things like "Minnesota's top college". Maybe reference here to less-rigorous college guides (like College Prowler or The Insider's Guide to the Colleges) is in order, under the rubric of "How Carleton College is talked about," separate from verifiable stats.

The point is, if we can find some way to talk about reputation that isn't the article defining that reputation, I think that will get at a lot of the underlying issues here. Any suggestions are welcome.

 * Interesting point, Natcase. Reputation and mythos are important aspects of a college's image. I dare say it influences a lot of personal attendance decisions. A separate section would be required to describe this. I can see it leading to a lot of controversy, though, because there are at least three distinct views of a college that conflict and compete: internal self-image, external self-image, and image in popular culture. Take Yale for example. It is an elite college for sure. Graduating from Yale confers huge status points (and not just because of superior academics) over graduating from SRSU (some random state university). There are positive aspects to its image: cream-of-the-crop, creates national and world political, business, and academic leaders, etc. There are also negative aspects to its image: old money snobbery, old-boys network, etc. It would be easy to find citations for these things, but I suspect Yale grads would hate the negative aspects and start edit wars.

 * I guess the real question here is do editors feel it is within the mission of the encyclopedia to describe these very real aspects of a university's reputation? I think so. Vantelimus (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would emphasize extreme caution going down this road because as Ventelimus sagely points out that the motivation to present an internal self-image would be overwhelmingly dominant owing to the fact that the only contributors are likely to be alumni and students. The selectively cited sources and authors casting an institution would preferentially find themselves into the articles while more negative perspectives would be preferentially excluded. One need only examine the extent to which "objective" numerical assessments are are made to conform to the POV of boosters writing the article: the negative "rankings" in the Princeton Review inevitably are no where to be found, US News and ARWU rankings are regurlarly parsed (nth best public university) to increase standing, and inconvenient facts such as low freshmen retention, high graduate debt, or 4-year graduation rates are excluded altogether. One should expect that the exact same will happen if we are to dive into entirely unquantifiable mediations on reputation as institutions whose objective quality could never be otherwise impugned are now finding that they're losing the "reputation" arms race because it's become a proxy for "quality". That's why I find this whole sideshow about selectivity to be so farcical - the term has been appropriated on such a large scale and so much weight and consternation invested in it by administrators, students, and editors that it's become meaningless if an institution with an 82% acceptance rate can be verifiably described exactly the same as one with a 9% rate. In addition, it's far too easy to trade on historical developments or notable alumni to draw inappropriate conclusions regarding the state of the present institution. For those tiniest minority of institutions whose reputations increase with distance, discussion of "reputation" may be appropriate within the context of the history section, but inappropriate elsewhere. But once that firewall is breached, you can be sure that SRSU is going to be claiming its reputation compares favorably with Harvard's. The success and seriousness of this project depends upon the checks we are willing to impose upon ourselves to ensure that these articles and the project as a whole remains useful, relevant, and neutral rather than wastelands of astroturf cited to glossy admissions pamphlets. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IHEP rankings resource
The Institute for Higher Education Policy, an American non-profit, has just created a Ranking Systems Clearinghouse on their website. This may be useful to editors concerned with academic reputations and sources that should or can be used in make related arguments. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good find! Madcoverboy (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

US Dept. of Education College Navigator
Another excellent, free, standardized, and open source for college information: College Navigator Madcoverboy (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC Policy
User:Aboutmovies has disputed whether or not the content of this guideline is official policy since User:Madcoverboy may have inadvertently promoted it. Please help us assess whether this proposed guideline represents a standard and documented good practice that all editors and school/college/university articles should follow. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * Support as nominator This should be promoted to a style policy/guideline because existing WP policies of WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL are not specific enough or always applicable to college/university articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as helpful to flesh out existing policies in more detail for this class of articles. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as it is always helpful to weed out articles that were clearly re/written by the article subject's PR/Communications Departments. This helps keep both Wikipedia and the subject from over-glorification - and especially for higher-education articles, I believe that an example of clear neutrality will be beneficial.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  21:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as guideline (I've learned that policies trump guidelines and I'm not sure all the ramifications of this one have been examined). The value of Wikipedia to universities is to present them as NPOV as possible; boosterism destroys that and makes the Wikipedia articles no better than the PR issued by the universities.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose - I fail to see a need for this, as I cannot think of a situation where WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL, WP:AVOID, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:LEAD do the trick. This is a classic example of instruction creep that should be avoided. Boosterism is not confined to schools, it is a problem in just about every area (see WP:AUTOBIO and even WP:COI), and we have many, many, many, many, guidleines/policies to address the problem (see the alphabet soup I listed above). Though if it does pass, you need to make changes to "Do not bury the reader in facts" as it starts off saying you can't have these facts, then later its OK to have them but not in the lead. I'm assuming this was meant to be a pure lead specific issue, though WP:LEAD already covers it, thus why it is unneeded. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's exactly because there is a litany of diffuse policies that can be invoked that there is a need for a specific and succinct guideline synthesizing the various strains of thought from each. I would echo 's comment that many of these opposes who don't edit college and university pages don't realize how pervasive and pernicious is the problem of COI editors to university/college pages nor that this guideline is the only central bulwark against these boosters and astroturfers. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do edit university pages and I do realize how much a problem this is. However, having another guideline isn't going to solve the problem if editors ignore it the way they do the existing guidelines. Cities, television shows, artists, albums, and pretty much every other subject can and has POV, peacock, etc. applied to it. We shouldn't have a separate guideline for each of those either. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We have specific topical guidelines for notability and specific topical guidelines for style, I see no reason why there shouldn't be specific topical guidelines for neutrality. The argument espoused below by Aboutmovies, RossPatterson, and other editors that higher-level policies are sufficient and specific enough to apply to this topic just as easily applies to style and neutrality guidelines yet the argument is negated by the existence of these specifc topical guidelines. BOOSTER isn't perfect and there appear to be contradictions and conflicts, but these can be fixed and shouldn't preclude this as being adopted as a guideline. Frankly, I would welcome there being specific neutrality/booster policies for cities, arts, etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, it's not necessary: general guidelines are sufficient, and there are plenty of non-binding essays that say the same. No need for instruction creep. Second (quote): "A Wikipedia article should emphasize what an academic institution has and does rather than what is said about it" - this is apparently in conflict with WP:V and WP:RS. A wikipedia article, on the contrary, must rely on what was said in reliable sources. Remove what was said from an article and it's reduced to nothing but OR about having and doing. This interpretation, quite likely, was not intented by authors, but it's what the proposal says. NVO (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As above, I'm pretty sure that this is all covered by things like WP:NPOV already. Furthermore, in the case of universities that actually are 'great' for some reason, you risk creating editing arguments. Mrh30 (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Aboutmovies is correct - the policies that cover all articles address this issue directly, succintly, and authoritatively. There is no reason for attempting to address it separately in this context and to thus introduce the potential for conflict over which policies govern. RossPatterson (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The others in opposition are correct. This issue is addressed by existing rules/guidelines. There is no reason to pile on. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This page in a nutshell: WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK apply to articles on academic institutions too. The general guidelines do the job; there's no need to specialize them, and only creates potential for contradictions, e.g. NVO's point about "what was said".  Oppose as either a policy or a guideline.  Kanguole (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Other guidelines adequately cover boosterism. Vantelimus (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as written, this is a much better essay than a guideline. Essentially the "rules" that this is trying to convey are covered by WP:NPOV and WP:V. Some of the content here appears to violate WP:RS by promoting non-independent, self-published sources and potentially original research.  Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. for those concerned with who edits what, I am one of the most active members of WP:WikiProject Texas A&M. Karanacs (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't necessarily care who edits what here. Look we are still just looking for opinions in hopes to reach a compromise (please read below).  We don't require you to be a universities article guru, just a relative understanding of what and why this proposal exists.  No one here needs to blab on about however many contributions he/she has made on Wiki or else I'd have almost 18,000 edits to copy and paste... >.< ::eek::   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  20:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose -an interesting essay, a poor guideline. Racepacket (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is useful as an essay that elucidates the specifics of how WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:PEACOCK, etc., apply to articles about colleges and universities. I think it will be helpful to give this type of essay to new users who are personally committed to the glorification of their favorite university, but it's a bit rough around the edges, and there is nothing here that needs to be elevated to the stature of a guideline. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

 * i like it in principle, perhaps as a guideline for interpreting how NPOV works in these articles, but determining boosterism still seems rather subjective when you are dealing with universities that are actually great. Amerique dialectics 20:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The template at the top needs to be changed from "proposed guideline" to "guideline under review" or "guideline up for demotion" or similar. In a hurry or would do it myself.  Old versions call it a guideline.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Changed from  to   Madcoverboy (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I note with interest that, right now, it appears that the support !votes are coming from editors who are heavily involved with college and university articles and the oppose !votes from editors who are not heavily involved in those articles. I opine that those of us who regularly edit these articles have a better understand of the need for this specific policy/guideline.  --ElKevbo (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? First that really doesn't matter, or are you saying small groups of interested editors should make Wikipedia wide rules? Second, I started the opposes, and I started the following higher ed articles: Minthorn Hall, University of Oregon School of Law, History of Oregon State University, Waller Hall (GA), Hallie Ford Museum of Art (GA), Willamette University School of Education, Mark O. Hatfield Library, Symeon C. Symeonides, Thomas Milton Gatch, Eaton Hall (Oregon), Willamette University College of Medicine, Gatke Hall, Willamette Collegian, Oregon Civic Justice Center, Willamette Law Review, Francis S. Hoyt, Willamette Bearcats, Art Building, Branford Price Millar Library, Pioneer Pacific College, Louis Arthur Grimes School of Law, & Pacific University Health Professions Campus. Throw in a DYK for expanding University of Liberia, working Willamette University College of Law into a GA, and dealing with COI edits by employees at Pacific University, Oregon State University, and others, I think I'm pretty qualified to understand the problem, personally. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Listing all your contributions doesn't make you right. You and any of the opposing editors adhering to this argument of existing general policies's adequacy need to first and foremost justify how a topical neutrality guideline is an example of instruction creep but existing topical guidelines for notability and style aren't. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody said it did make me right regarding the topic of this RFC. The list is to refute the contention that opposes come from non-university editors, and the list does make me right in that refutation, at least as applied to me. Second, the people opposed here do not have to do anything in the way of proof. But the classic, "if all your friends jumped off a bridge would you too" argument is all that is needed. Or to put it another way, just because we already have instruction creep does not justify having more of it. PEACOCK, WEASEL and WORDSTOAVOID could and should really be combined into one guideline. After all, I would assume weasel words and peacock terms are by their inclusion into guidelines that discourage their usage would thus, by definition, be WORDSTOAVOID. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you and other opposing editors are more opposed to instruction creep than the content or intent of this specific guideline because that is the only argument being espoused. For what has been a highly effective guideline to date, this is a very strange place to draw a line in the sand. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems like Aboutmovies is listing your contributions like it's his curriculum vitae or something. Instead of showing off the list of articles you've touched, why don't you work on a compromise?  Link-dumping doesn't make the situation go away, nor does it make people see things your way.  Please remain productive here.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  09:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but ElKevbo brought up contributions. Which as I said, are not particularly relevant (nor should any editor related issues be relevant), but the issue was raised, and as such has been refuted. If you would like to keep it focused on this topic's merits, feel free to, but comments related to opposer's ability to judge this topic will be responded to if raised. As to a compromise, make it an essay. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not intended to get inside your mind... I'm interested in seeing how you respond to Madcoverboy's question posted right before my last post regarding your opposition due to instruction creep. It's not that I'm trying to pick on one specific topic against the opposition, I just want to understand what point-of-view you're coming from so editors who support this may look into a better compromise.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  09:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, more creep does not fix the problem, and I am in favor of a distillation of many existing guidelines into one succinct guideline. And had I been around/aware of these other policies/guidelines that have led to creep, I would have fought against it then. Next, it almost seems as if Madcoverboy is advocating that we let this through and say screw creep. It's that or, something along the lines of, let's let this one through and then we'll draw the line in the sand but let this one get through. But for me the, the line in the sand has been drawn, and this has gone over it, and so have other ones. That is, my line in the sand was drawn say down on Venice beach in SoCal and we are already up in San Francisco somewhere with this and other guidelines. Now, not to draw really bad analogies, but saying in essence "we should have this one more" is like saying let's go ahead keep cutting down more trees on this steep hillside that is prone to landslides, as half the trees have already been cut down. But I think ultimately what it comes down to is that some people who write about universities see a need for this, I however do not see a need for this as existing rules exist for dealing with this issue, and pointing out that other rules are also repetative only makes me want to go get those merged, not make me go, ohh screw it lets go ahead and have 1 million rules so we no longer have the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" and have the "encyclopedia where your edit will be reverted on sight since somewhere we have a rule against that edit". Aboutmovies (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I outline below in the compromise section, no other area of Wikipedia (perhaps with the exception of politicians, bands/artists, and companies/organizations) are the knowledgeable editors whom we depend on to write the article so completely enmeshed in conflicts of interest with the topics they write about. It thus stands to reason that we are justified in having a stand-alone neutrality policy to deal head on with the issue of rampant but unavoidable COI and systemic bias. We absolutely need to have this or some other guideline in place to make it explicitly clear to editors that the purpose of a college/university wikipedia article is not for it to duplicate or approximate glossy, happy admissions paraphernalia no matter how verifiable or reliable those sources may be. Invoking the abstract policies you outline simply doesn't have enough specificity or teeth in the face of pervasive COI and systemic bias. Madcoverboy (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ElKevbo: What did you expect? Yes, the authors of the proposal come from a specific wiki-circle, and so are their supporters. All four of them. Quite naturally. Once the RFC was posted elsewhere, you have an inflow of outsiders that do not engage actively in United States college articles. Like it or not, they outnumber your group. Like it or not, they don't support "concensus" homebrewed by a small group but intended to be binding for everyone and even supersede general policies and guidelines. It happens regularly; some large wikiprojects (i.e. MILHIST) impose their rulings successfully, some fail to do so. Maybe a little positive PR would be helpful. Note that (quote) "those of us who regularly edit these articles have a better understanding" does not help it. NVO (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I expect there to be some modicum of respect for content experts. I'm not a physicist but if those physicists who actively edit Wikipedia were to report that there was a serious, persistent, and long-term problem with the physics articles in Wikipedia I would certainly give them a considerable amount of respect and judge their comments accordingly.  Of course, I don't expect the interests of any one group of editors to hold sway over everyone and this back-and-forth is natural, healthy, and necessary, particularly to reign in groups that may too zealous or overly focused on one class of articles or interests.  --ElKevbo (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK... let's stop that right there. Look, it's easy to single out one editor when trying to reach for a compromise.  Please keep the discussion clean and keep in mind the objective here, which is still trying to settle this disputed policy - not to put any specific editor on trial.  Leave that for User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  19:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking through other WP policies and the lack of non-style project/topic-specific guidelines, it may be appropriate to merge this content into WP:UNIGUIDE. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It may have to come down to merging this into UNIGUIDE. I'm just not sure if whether after the merge UNIGUIDE as a whole would require another approval by the community again.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  00:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Compromise proposal
An option would be to redirect this to UNIGUIDE and shorten it to something along the lines of this: Articles on academic institutions are prone editing and the usage of terms to place the institution in a favorable light. This boosterish editing detracts from the quality of those articles and should be avoided. To achieve this goal, articles on academic institutions should abide by all Wikipedia guidelines and policies. These include:
 * Avoid the use of imprecise weasel words; non-neutral peacock terms and phrases; as well as other words that are clichéd, derogatory, ambiguous, and the like. The lead section should be a generalized summary of the subject.
 * Articles must be written neutrally and the information must be verifiable.
 * Although anyone may edit an article, conflicts of interest should be avoided.

This solves my problem, as it prevents additional proliferation of guidelines that are simply repetitive. But it allows you to have a quick summary of the problem you find. You can change the shortcut to the new section and then cite BOOSTER to your hearts desire (though technically simply citing guidelines is discouraged). I didn't mention this before, but saying the article must be "honest" is really over the top. It would be like saying the article needs to make sense. Its a duh, and its covered by the verifiablity policy, in that if you are dishonest then it is not what the source said, thus cannot be verified. But this is the type of solution that would address my issue. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to this as an outcome. However, Aboutmovies' distillation doesn't do enough to acknowledge the fact that (unlike WP:MILHIST, WP:HURRICANE, or WP:HWY where knowledgeable editors needn't have a stake in the articles nor do their WikiProject wonks constantly have to justify their actions to the various fiefdoms continually claiming ownership of their articles) university article are almost always written by editors with clear COI (either as students receiving housing/financial aid from the college/university or as alumni whose compensation is concomitant with the prestigiousness of their degree). Accepting this unmitigatable reality, it needs to be made absolutely crystal clear that the purpose of any college/university article is not to be a monument to the institution's greatness, even in light of the fact that sources exist (and especially in the absence of any consensus on the reliability of university sources) that can be marshaled or recontextualized to corroborate an assertion of its "prestigious", "elite", "super duper awesome", etc. status. In my wildest of pipe dreams, the lay reader should expect that the articles for Bunker Hill Community College or the City College of San Francisco read no differently than the articles for Harvard or Stanford. Madcoverboy (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This COI passage is quite far-fetched. I understand your concern about swarms of college fans, but take it one bit further, and it's time to disqualify all US residents from editing US-related articles (they do get public services from the government, whether they want it or not). Or call the Pentagon to examine all MILHIST participants for present/past/grandfathers connection to the service. Everyone has something special about their subjects, otherwise they won't be here, there's no need to brand COI on any student, past or present. NVO (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not far fetched at all to assert that alumni absolutely have a stake as I believe you imply (the case of the students should be far more obvious). There are already two separate rankings of university's web presence (Webometrics Ranking of World Universities and Global Language Monitor's online media citations) so it's not at all difficult to see Wikipedia article ratings figuring into the latest/greatest university rankings. These new rankings dutifully parroted and promolgated by the university news offices with the appropriate taglines for unusual usurptions on web pages, news releases, student newspapers, and local media. Ohio Wesleyan University does not figure into most popular "top 10" sorts of rankings, but being one of a handful of university FAs certainly increased its stock, not least of all in my book having read about their international emphasis. What of the fact that the Wikipedia article is almost always one of the top 5 hits on a google search - has that no impact? The alumni of rarely-acknowledged colleges/universities have every right and ability to make the case of the quality of their school here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the cheapest sort of advertising - University of Phoenix and Regis University likely both wish they could always figure into the top 5 google hits - Wikipedia is advertising and advertising intentionally mediates our perceptions of value. Maybe I should just take my tin foil hat off, but if there is not a ranking incorporating Wikipedia article "quality" into its methodology published by December 31, 2010, I will pledge my editing services to a randomly selected AAU member article to bring it up for FAC. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tying lifetime well-being to the college name? What's right (if right) for fresh graduates soon evaporates; the yearbook may still be a source of helpful contacts, but that's it. I have no interest in current ranking of my alma mater (it was over twenty years ago), why would I? NVO (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also believe talk of COI is a bit over the top. I was in the 'oppose' camp, and am a consistent editor of University of Cambridge related articles. I went there and like the university, but I can and do edit out people trying to unfairly inflate (or deflate) it, under the pre-existing guidelines and policies mentioned above. Of course every article written influences people's perception of a topic, whether written in a reasonably neutral manner or not. This isn't confined to university articles. There's no right, or wrong, way to create the emphasis other than the building of consensus, which WP has plenty of well defined mechanisms for already. I still come back to the fact that this seems to just be a specific case of WP:NPOV. If you start legislating for this, you're going to need to create similar cloned articles for things like sports teams, political parties, countries with rivalries and so on. Before you know it, it will all be out of control! Mrh30 (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can disagree with my perception of COI and the discussion above was a bit of a tangent, but do editors disagree with my central thesis and attendant implications? It is entirely possible to have an article chock-full of peacocked and weasel words describing the gloriousness of University X dutifully citing select sources. Those precious few wonkish editors who actually venture beyond the safe confines of their alma mater's article can attest to the ensuing and all-too-common dance: an edit/article is accused of non-neutrality/boosterism, previous contributors retreat behind the skirt of "Mother Verifiability", a long and predictable discussion about balancing neutrality, verifiability, reliability, ASF, and moralizing ensues (for which NPOV has a very unspecific section) with the neutrality-minded editor being vastly outnumbered by opposing !votes by editors with obvious COI and reduced to crying wolf yet again by canvassing other overworked wonks or appealing to the deafening silence of WP:UNI. The bruised and battered wonk leaves in due course and glamorizing content inevitably rematerializes with better citations but no attempt to address the bias of the article. Strip this of guideline status, and now those editors get to add legitimizing WP essays against accusations of their toothlessness to the repertiore of the dance. Sorry if this comes across as autobiographical, but I've been to a few hoedowns in my years here. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the COI clause is too much. You might want to soften it to say "Alumni who edit articles about their almas mater should be especially careful to maintain a neutral point of view.Vantelimus (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Madcoverboy: I too understand the problem and have had the same experiences. But I have had those experiences just as often at non-university pages as well. Further, why is it you feel this being a guideline will some how be more effective than WP:NPOV, a policy. If people are already ignoring NPOV, I fail to see how another guideline would be effective. Which to quote one part of NPOV that is rather applicable to one of your issues: "Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article." Thus it addresses your "mother verifiability" issue head on. As to COI, it exists everywhere in some form or another. And what is more, as at both my undergrad and now graduate institution, they didn't give me a dime. I or my parents have or will be paying them, so its a lot like going to Target and shopping, just for an education for my personal experience and plenty of others. So does that mean editors should watch what they right on articles of stores and businesses they frequent? Actually yes, but not because there is a COI, but because every editor on every article needs to abide by the various rules. And we have lots of rules, and we have rules that already exist for every situation covered by BOOSTER, so we don't need a re-hash or compilation or greatest hits album. We just need to treat university articles like every other article. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, Aboutmovies. The purpose of WikiProject Universities is to further standardize articles with guidelines not already set or has not been clearly defined in the specified area.  I cannot say what you quoted cannot be used in university articles - because it can.  However, what Madcoverboy has been saying is that - "look, people are ignoring the policies we have on Wikipedia when it comes to university articles (and other topics too...) - let's further define by combining existing policies into a guideline specifically for university articles!"  I agree it is not as effective as a policy.  But he's trying to set an example here as an addendum to WP:UNIGUIDE.  Coming from this angle, can you blame Madcoverboy for trying?  You two are very passionate about run-ins/hoe-downs or whatever you two want to call it.  It doesn't change a thing.  We have an issue of editors placing COI and POV, PEACOCK...blah blah blah...*insert link dump here*.  WP:BOOSTER... I want to say... encompasses all of those link dumps into something that specifically applies to university articles.  It clarifies what is and is not acceptable in WP:UNI's beliefs and standards.  Now, let's throw in the instruction creep comment here.  Do we really need it?  Actually, we do.  When you get into a situation with a new editor who may not be a wiki-guru... most likely when you link-dump, they'll just TL:DR you.  But if you clearly state what is okay on WP:BOOSTER for university articles, you read one thing it's done - if the guy actually doesn't TL:DR you, he/she'll link on the internal links and read further.  Personally I don't see a problem with what Madcoverboy is doing.  However, once again, let's work out a solution here, siding yourself to one extreme is easy - working towards a compromise isn't.  Let's stop being the immovable object before an unstoppable force comes along ... :)   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  08:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That last bit was a weird analogy... >.<  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  08:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop telling me to work towards a compromise. I've proposed two (make it an essay, combine with UNIGUIDE), and all I seem to get is, no let's have this as is. So, I've been working on moving towards a compromise. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming this is rejected as a policy or guideline, it would be better as an essay than a redirect to UNIGUIDE. UNIGUIDE should be tweaked a bit to incorporate some of this material but this would be more useful to me as an essay than a redirect.  --ElKevbo (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current compromise definitely addresses the points made from both sides of the support and oppose sections (mind the COI discussion directly below the compromised wording aside) it is probably what we'll have to do. I agree with ElKevbo that we should probably change this to an essay, and then tweak this revised wording into UNIGUIDE.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  20:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoedown at UC Berkeley
All too typical example of boosterism at University of California, Berkeley. Everyone is welcome to follow the predictable discussion along and see why it is so important to have this as a guideline. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I looked, and agree it shouldn't likely be in the lead and needs to re-worded slightly. But going from your statements there, I have a feeling may mis-understand what NPOV is on Wikipedia. As the policy states to begin with:
 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. (emphasis added)
 * Thus we do not eliminate the view, in fact, that view must be represented, but also must be represented alongside any contrary views that also meet the RS and V guidelines. An even better explanation is under the explanation. Pay close attention to the part where it is OK to say The Beattles are the greatest band ever (i.e. Cal is one of the bestest of the bestest) if done properly, which certainly is an opinion and is far from neutral and hard to quantify. NPOV is neutral, in that we present all the POVs after ensuring they are reputable opinions. Where needed, opinions about the subject matter are included (e.g. The Beattles are the best or Cal is great) and properly attributed to reliable sources. Now, we would also include just the facts as well, and there we let those speak for themselves, and do not provide our own opinions as Wikipedia editors as to what that content means. For instance, let's say university X is rated #1 in Country A for 20 straight years by every rankings list known to man. That info gets added, but editors cannot then synthesize and say it is the bestest school in the whole-wide country. That would be the editor's opinion. But, if sources do say that university X is the bestest, then that can be added if that opinion is properly attributed to that source.
 * Basically, Wikipedia is supposed to mirror the real world, and in the real world some schools are considered better than others, thus that should be reflected in Wikipedia. Trying to remove that is essentially a bias in itself. So if reliable sources say Cal is whatever it is, then that needs to be in Wikipedia, whether whatever that is is positive or negative. So there really isn't a fire here to put out. (Note the other editors there seem to agree with you that the lead isn't the best place for it and a better source is needed). Aboutmovies (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit of mine you quote was a heat-of-the-moment, poorly summarized version of WP:ASF. The ensuing discussion was not one of my proudest moments, but the discussion highlights how citing a litany of policies (as the opponents suggest) doesn't always ensure compliance or understanding. As I mentioned, my primary concern in "demoting" BOOSTER to essay is that editors now need justify the legitimacy of it as documenting reams of hard-fought consensus among dozens of editors over several years, and not just the view of an editor written in a day. Aboutmovies, you seem to be the most knowledgeable so far in this domain of essay/guideline/policy and I'd like something to assuage my fears that demoting this to essay isn't going to totally strip it of its teeth. Hold me ;) Madcoverboy (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would strip it of its teeth for many, as essays are only arguments. That's why the better option for you would be the merge. Some people out there have argued that essays are somehow binding, but that is not what Essay says, in fact it says that essays may or may not reflect any sort of consensus (or the consensus of one). Of course I have had someone point me to ONLYESSAY, which is itself an essay, which is to say, an essay saying essays are to be followed is circular. But, many editors do tend to pay some attention to them. And here you are really summarizing a variety of policies/guidelines, so a "hey you POV pusher look at this nice summary to see why I am opposed to your edit" might be what you are looking for. But, ultimately, a guideline has more teeth. BTW, Here is an example of the boosterish behavior in a non-school context. Companies are normally even worse. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
I'm going to demote this to essay per the consensus from the RfC above. However, I am going to encourage all editors to go to WP:ADVOCACY which is also a proposed guideline. ADVOCACY appears to address the issues many of the supporting issues raised while also being sufficiently general to speak to the justifications for several editors' opposition. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I made some substantial changes to the essay to address issues and inconsistencies that editors pointed out. If you don't like them, I'm sure we can discuss it ad nauseum but since this is a non-binding essay now, it has no real teeth. If you're categorically opposed to everything this essay stands for, then I encourage you to go write the Embrace academic boosterism essay! Madcoverboy (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Marquette University Law School
Could someone please take a look at Marquette University Law School. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with it. Thanks. -- Sift &  Winnow  18:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done some trimming/ce/reorg, but it still needs independent sourcing and probably one more pass to get all the POV out. I've also left a friendly message with the primary (recent) contributor to point out some of the key parts of this essay. Karanacs (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism
I realize that the list of universities down the right is ultimately for a sardonic purpose. But it does seem odd that, even half-jokingly, the best university of every kind (even what are in my view silly kinds) are all from the anglosphere (and perhaps all from two countries).

I start with the first one, the oldest. I'm amazed to read that Oxford was the oldest; I'd thought that this honor (for what it's worth) went to University of Al-Karaouine. True, that wasn't really a university -- but then for much of its history neither was Oxford.

(Ah, but then Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation is vigorously policed by editors who have defined "university" as of European origin. Whence the didactic last paragraph of the introduction to the article on Al-Azhar University.)

For a bit more variety, one might add the University of Tokyo, for its importance to (the grip that its old boy network has had on) the government of a nation. (Check the percentage of Japanese cabinet members who have come from there. Oh, and I do mean boy: sexism has been as blatant as cronyism.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The short answer is, I created the images & captions and I exclusively edit U.S. institutions, so I'm necessarily biased thusly. It's certainly the case that universities that are "consistently highly ranked" are in the anglosphere, thus these are the universities that have the more pervasive problems of boosterism. Whether this preponderance of ranking of anglophone universities is an artifact of anglophiles primarily creating the ranking systems (ARWU being a notable exception) or anglophiles being hung up on their relative position in the hierarchy is left as an exercise for the reader. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I used to think the University of Bologna was the oldest, but I'm not surprised to find that that claim is challenged. Of course, it's not so clear what counts as a "university" nor what counts as "oldest." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream rankings are not entirely subjective
They are measuring the reputation of universities among other universities and top employers. It's not boosterism to note the fact that a university is consistently rated highly -- in the top 10 nationwide, let's say -- by peers and Fortune 500s. It's a plain fact. I think we should allow rankings (from mainstream/reliable sources, such as Forbes, USNWR, and so forth) to be placed in the lede. Steeletrap (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Academic boosterism" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Academic boosterism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –xenotalk 12:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on WT:HED
A discussion relevant to this article is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting this article, and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects this page. Your views and input would be most welcome! Shadowssettle(talk) 15:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

MIT sideblurb
I genuinely can't tell if it's a joke or not, but on the side section which goes through sardonically pointing out the "best" academic institutions, MIT is listed for its prevalence in popular culture. MIT in popular culture is not an existing page. I just think it's funny, and wonder if that was on purpose. Trogdor314 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Ejurgaite

Welcome!

'''Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Cook Effect
Please don't revert changes to bring an article into Wikipedia style and correct English. We can work together ion this article, but not if you revert my work. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bear with me. I'm new at this. I was making changes at the same time you were. When I was finished editting the article, I received a message that someone made changes and it didn't allow me to make mine, even though I was already working on it, so I just copied and pasted mine in. I didn't even read what your changes were, where they were or who wrote them. I just wanted my info to get in there too. But I looked at your additions, and they seem fine.

Thanks for helping me with this article. Ejurgaite 21:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * OK. Note, though, that when you get an edit conflict, pasting your version into the top box deletes all the other editor's work; it's a pain, but the thing to do is to interpolate your edits into the new version (and hope that it doesn't happen often). Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, I do think the external links at the bottom should point to the pages where the articles on the Jeff Cook Effect are. This was one of the changes I had made earlir, not a revertion. If you see a problem with this change, let me know. Ejurgaite 21:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure that I understand you — have they ever not pointed to the external pages? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just changed what page the external link pointed to. originally, they were pointed to the homepages of those sites. They now point directly to the articles. I am currently making changes to the article, adding external links from the other researchers' names, as there is nothing yet in Wikipedia on these people. Just so we don't run into that same problem again. In any case, from now on, I will not simply paste the content in as you requested. Ejurgaite 22:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Cook effect... again
I am in the process of removing the links and references to Jeff Cook Effect that you have inserted into Gravity, Pendulum, Exotic matter and possibly other articles that are based on real science. I don't recommend it, but if you must have references in these or other real science articles please make it very clear that the effect is total pseudoscience. I'm leaving your entries in Anti-gravity intact because that subject is traditionally somewhat pseudoscientific. --Teknic 02:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teknic,

Mr. Cook has produced a number of experiments, photos, video clips and documents that follow very strict rules, as I have found, to standard scientific method. Also, others have witnessed the experiments and reproduced them on several different occasions. Be careful of changing valid scientific experiments into the pseudoscience realm if you are not first aware of such experiments. Please do not confuse the public on this issue. I agree that pseudoscience does nothing but hinder knowledge. However, this is really not the case here.

Ejurgaite 03:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Mr. Jurgaite, I would be pleased if we could come to a compromise on this issue. I'm willing to let the article lean slightly towards your point of view provided you do not link to it from any article based on real science (except anti-gravity). I see you've just started editing a few weeks ago, and all your edits have been regarding this "anti-gravity device".  This makes it hard to judge whether or not you edit in good faith.  I have backed up my edits with links to failed tests of the device.  You say successful tests have been witnessed and reproduced, but out of the two links you provide one says that "Jeff seems to be the only person who can do this experiment", and the other says that the effects "are the result of high-amplitude magnetic field pulses" (it is well known that the plasma component of fire is magnetic).  Please provide more documentation (preferably from sites that do not sell plans for the device).  I hope you will find this acceptable as some wikipedians would not be quite so accommodating.  --Teknic 04:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ejurgaite


text:
Auca Mahuevo

Auca Mahuevo is a Cretaceous lagerstätte in the eroded badlands of the Patagonian province of Neuquén, Argentina. The sedimentary layers of the Anacleto Formation at Auca Mahuevo were deposited between 83.5 and 79.5 million years before present and offer a view of a fossilized titanosaurid sauropod hatchery.

Description
At Auca Mahuevo dinosaur eggs containing identifiable embryonic remains have been the most spectacular discoveries. The eggs retain casts of the membrana testacea, the internal membrane that adheres to the shell, familiar to anyone who has peeled a hard-boiled egg. The context revealed a vast rookery of excavated nest structures that can be compared to living egg-layers such as turtles, crocodilians and birds. Even their spacing within the nesting locality (two to three meters apart) can be assessed. Reconstruction of nesting strategies suggest that shallow pits with rims were excavated and plant material incorporated in the surface.

The Auca Mahuevo lagerstätte was discovered during two expeditions, in 1997 and 1999, by Luis Chiappe, Lowell Dingus, and Rodolfo Coria, who were looking for fossilized birds. The site is now officially protected.

title: Auca Mahuevo