Talk:University of Mannheim

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

Founding date[edit]

similar to the discussions about founding dates of other institutions of higher learning ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princeton_University#Fourth-oldest_vs._Fifth-oldest ) I'd suggest to write 1907 as the founding date, as the University claims itself. If you chose the accrediting as full university as relevant date, you'd have to change it for Harvard, Yale and others since they started out as colleges as well. Unless complaints posted, I'll change it end of the week. Opinions? MaxE 13:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. Or are there other arguments? Stefan Weil (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by Sacrumi[edit]

I do not agree with the last changes by user Sacrumi. Yes, there are university championships in Germany (Deutsche Hochschulmeisterschaften). They are often used to determine which German university will represent German academia on a European level. See http://www.uni-mannheim.de/sport/ --> Ergebnisse

Further, I find it unfitting to change the establishment date without contributing to the discussion page which already deals with the topic and well explains reasons for the chosen entry of 1907. Giving reasoned backup for the change and finding support in it would save irritation and complaints such as this one by me now. Please tell me what and why. Thanks. Sorry, log-in didn't work. Will try to write signed-in next tiem. 84.56.238.121 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)MaxE[reply]

Rankings[edit]

I think the Rankings section's language is unduely advertising style for an encyclopedia. Mannheim is undoubtly the best business school in Germany and there are numerous rankings which show that impressively; so why not just citing them instead of making such vague claims?147.142.186.54 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some advertising language. It's fairly shameless.--142.232.98.112 (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student Life[edit]

The section about the Mannheim student life in my eyes is highly problematic. As a student from Mannheim, I am not aware of any Studentenverbindung that still conducts academic fencing. If this would be the case, there would certainly be a public debate concerning the issue. A source would be quite helpful here. German Studentenverbindungen furthermore can NOT be compared to American or Canadian Fraternities. A lot of those groups of (male, german) students can be reasonably identified as belonging to the extreme right-wing political spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.209.43.79 (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not problematic. I'm a student at this university as well and I know at least 2-3 Studentenverbindungen/Burschenschaften that are still maintaining the tradition of academic fencing, e.g. the Corps Rheno-Nicaria. Furthermore you cannot generalize and state that the majority of members of such organizations have a link to the right-wing side - that's improper and inadequate.--MFo2014 (talk) 14:11, 04 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also from the University of Mannheim and I also find this paragraph problematic. Even if they still hold on to their traditions, they do not play any significant role in our student life. The student initiatives are of much greater importance. To my mind, the paragraph on the "fraternaties" should be shorter and more at the end of the Student life section, first of all because that which really influences our campus life are the many initatives and student clubs...Never even heard of fraternaties at the UniMa before I read this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiniVanDango (talk • contribs) 15:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this article has been turned into an advertising brochure or blog by people employed by, or at, the university. This whole thing is sourced (where there are citations) almost solely to the university's website, and per the Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion policy, this is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please also be aware of WP:RELTIME - nothing is "current" or "now" in WP, as articles have no datelines. Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, meant to provide a high level overview, summarizing accepted knowledge about the world to readers, for free. that is the mission. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally with you, Jytdog. The only thing, I don't agree with you is that it's bad if people "at the university" try to improve the article. Who should do it then? Nobody really seemes to care. This article has been out there for years as it is - at least that's what I suspect after working on it (and that has also been my motivation to join Wikipedia). We insiders know much better than "outsiders" what plays a role at our university and what does not (see the fraternaties or the Rowing thing that I wrote about below). I don't even mind if employees try to improve the article as long as they do it neutrally and without the "promotional garbadge" as you call it. I thank you for revising all of my changes. I hope we can make a real Wikipedia article out of this piece of crap ... because that's what it is...sorry...GiniVanDango (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 'we insiders" if completely wrong-headed. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent sources say. We use primary or self-published sources ONLY to fill in around the edges. What happens with this page in Wikipedia is that from time to time people affiliated with the university swing by and add a bunch of garbage sourced from the university about what is "currently" go on there. That is why this page is garbage. If you want to be a Wikipedian then edit like one, and not like yet another WP:BOOSTER. Find independent sources about the university and summarize them. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jytdog, but what is an independent source for you? Newspapers? :D... which in 90% of the cases copy university press releases? And if there is no so-called independent source that has covered an event, does that mean that it didn't happen? According to me, it is important to write in a neutral way and not to use promotional language, but only relying on non-university sources will not give the full picture as I wrote below: There is neither a lot of scientific nor a lot of press coverage on universities in general to really quote external sources for the full picture without the universities' websites. GiniVanDango (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not for me. For Wikipedia editors. That means you and everybody else. See WP:INDY. What you think is important is not relevant. You are nobody. So am I. We know what is important based on what independent sources say is important. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on University of Mannheim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmming[edit]

I trimmed a bunch of self-sourced or unsourced promotional garbage.

This page in Wikipedia (I cannot call it in "an article", as it not a Wikipedia article) is not an advertising brochure nor is it a proxy for the university's many, many webpages. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some trimming, too, and I will continue: There is a lot of redundant or unnecessary stuff in the history part. And lots of the things left still need citation.GiniVanDango (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians, I'm trimming the history part. I'm not sure, but do you find the part about the seal necessary? According to me it's a trivia, what's your opinion?GiniVanDango (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also deleted the whole part about the Palatine Academy. It should get a page of its own and not be overly explained on a page about the University of Mannheim...GiniVanDango (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop trimming parts of the article, I've spent considerable time in writing it and your edits are pure vandalism. Instead of trying to destroy the University of Mannheim page, you should focus on the tons of other articles on Wikipedia that really need serious editing and content creation - this is where you add value. Both GiniVanDango and Jytdog seem personally conflicted. MattRaups (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sports and Athletics[edit]

To the best of my knowledge there are no rowing competitions anymore in that the Uni Mannheim takes part. I will delete that and try to write a more encyclopaedic version of this paragraph. Jytdog deleted it and I agree with him (as with many others of his deletions) that a lot in this article seems to be promotional. Let's make a real Wikipedia article out of that ... I'm thankful for any help!GiniVanDango (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STOP CITING THE UNIVERSITY WEBSITE. Read the notices at the top of the page for god's sake. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry Jytdog...I'm new to Wikipedia and not all that is on the University's website is wrong! The problem with univeristies is that there is neither scientific nor a lot of press coverage on the Universities, so most of the information cannot be cited from external sources...what can I do, damn!!!! Help me!!! :-)GiniVanDango (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the library and find independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constant undoing of changes by Jytdog[edit]

I'm trying to improve this article to the best of my knowledge, adding independent sources, removing academic boosterism, adding information according to the guidelines I'm given by users. I really start to feel impeded...that's not what I thought Wikipedia was about...perhaps I had a wrong impression, thought it was a community...instead of helping new editors to understand how everything works and to discuss issues, I get warnings on my page...If someone is doing edit warring, it's definitely not me...really sadGiniVanDango (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you had the wrong impression. WP works in the tension between a "libertarian" ethos and a "communitarian" ethos. Yes we want people to be bold and improve things and each user is obligated to aim for WP's mission and to learn and follow the policies and guidelines. That is the only way WP works. Contiuing to add yet more content sourced to the university's website when the page is already tagged for relying to heavily on it, is ignoring the communitarian thing. Also you already said that you are a student there, and you ignoring the COI tag and BOOSTER essay by continually adding hyperfine detail that is.... only sourceable to the school's website.
I will say this again. This is an encyclopedia. We provide high level, enduring knowledge. Focusing on trivia that changes from year to year is the wrong idea.
How to get on the right track? FIND INDEPENDENT SOURCES AND SUMMARIZE THEM. Stop trying to add what you think is important. What is important, is what independent sources say - sources that are themselves aiming to provide enduring knowledge.
Find
High quality
Independent
Sources
And
SUMMARIZE THEM.
That is how we build WP articles. Where WP pages get hijacked and become something else, is when people come here to write what they know, or to promote their company or boss or school or their favorite band. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you both created any value to the site? You have just trimmed down everything without adding anything. Please check out international university pages as comparison, they are much more detailed. Most of your edits are just vandalism. MattRaupa (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Would you mind if I delete the last section of the lead which lists all the associations of which the UMA is a member? It's repeated in the infobox anyway. Thanks for your opinion!GiniVanDango (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same, I've been bold and removed the section. Aloneinthewild (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been bold and deleted the Rankings from the lead which according to the WP:univeristies guidelines should be mentioned in a separate section near the end of the articleGiniVanDango (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Research[edit]

Dear Jytdog, the text for the research category that I started to write is not promotional. The reference for the first sentence is the same as for the second, that's why I didn't add it. The Funding Atlas of the German Research Foundation is an independent and reliable source. And reality is that the UMA has this focus on the economic and social sciences for which the rest of this section is further proof. In the guidelines of WP:univeristies it says that authors should "mention distinguishing academic, historical, or demographic characteristics". The academic characteristic of the UMA is what I wrote in the first sentence...nothing promotional about that... Therefore I will undo your change and add the aforementioned citation to the first sentence (because that's the only thing you critisized in your edit summary when removing the whole section instead of the one sentence you didn't find ok)...not to be confused with an edit war...GiniVanDango (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising sourced to an advertising brochure, in the lead[edit]

this was utterly unacceptable. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault. I wanted to add a source that is in English for this information in the lead, so that other authors who don't know German can check the information. It's a brochure by the Federal State of Baden-Württemberg (not by the University of Mannheim), thought that would count as a secondary source. As i mentioned above in the Research section: The UMA has a focus on the economic and social sciences which are tied to the other disciplines it offers. I can also cite it from a more independent source, it's gonna be in German, however, and can't be checked because it's a book from the library...I understand your critique, though GiniVanDango (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you understand that UM has a strength in economics and social sciences. Find a secondary source that says that. Stop adding promotional garbage to Wikipedia. You are learning nothing about conflict of interest and how corrupting it is. This is important everywhere in life. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that you know nothing about the German and European research landscape...the German Research Foundation is a secondary source according to WP:NOR It funds all the universities in Germany, the report from which I do have the info states statistics about how these funds are divided onto the universities in Germany where is stated explicitly that the UMA has this focus (it's not what I'm thinking, it's written there by a SECONDARY source and there is no COI, it's just statistics! You can use Google translate to check) + the info about the number of ERC Grants is also from statistics/lists published by the European Research Council and it took me hours to go through all of these...These are no primary but SECONDARY sources. I have no intention in boosting something, it's not my fault that secondary sources state that the UMA performs well in these areas!!! So please stop removing things that are suggested by WP guidelines. Plus: Almost all of the Wikipedia Featured Articles that I take as best practice examples on which I base my editing contain information like this...why don't you make an edit war with them??? GiniVanDango (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal expertise is completely irrelevant in Wikipedia. Completely against the spirit of this entire project - please erase that garbage from your mind. If you want to write based on your personal expertise please go start a blog. When you created your account, and literally every time you save an edit, you agree to aim for the mission of WP and to follow community policies and guidelines. This is in the Terms of Use, legally, but is also the spirit under which this entire project works. Editing WP is a privilege that is offered openly, freely, to everyone. If people cannot aim for the mission and follow the policies and guidelines, the community restricts or removes editing privileges. If you cannot edit per the policies and guidelines on this topic due to your conflict of interest, we may have to ban you from this topic. Your behavior (every edit you make in Wikipedia is recorded and is linkable) will drive that decision. Please decide if you can follow the policies and guidelines or not, and save us the trouble of taking community action. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ERC database is a primary source, btw. Again if you use independent, secondary sources and accurately summarize them there will be no problems. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me send you this text from the WP:universities guidelines: "...colleges and universities do publish a wide variety of important and authoritative information that should be included in any article. The Common Data Set, a fact book/almanac, President's reports, course catalogs, and/or faculty handbooks are excellent and authoritative sources of information on the college or university and can commonly be found on the websites for the provost, registrar, or institutional research office. A university's library or archives office may have a list of published articles or books about the university's history that can be used as reliable sources as well. Independent organizations and national governments also collect and disseminate information about colleges and universities. In the United States, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching publishes widely used descriptive classifications of colleges and universities, the Department of Education publishes statistics through the College Navigator website, and the National Science Foundation publishes information on research & development expenditures."

The German Research Foundation and the European Research Council are Science Foundations...as you see I am acting according to WP policies and guidelines...if you want to ban me for this, do it, then you're acting against wikipedia's own guidelines.GiniVanDango (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, I have requested a third opinion for our dispute...because I have discovered that I like writing university articles and I would like to contribute to other university articles, too, after improving the UMA article, I would like to know once and for all which sources are ok.GiniVanDango (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
This is a large discussion and I cannot comment on all of it, but will try to give my opinion on the most relevant parts.

First, a note on the Wikipedia:College and university article advice page: it is an essay written by a Wikipedia contributor. It does not have the weight of policy, nor is it a generally agreed-upon guideline on Wikipedia. The statements and sentiments expressed in the essay may be useful, but they are not policy statements. Also, consider the context of the essay: Special care is required for citing self-published sources, such as information about a college/university published by the institution itself or written by its paid staff: the cited information must be authentic, not be self-serving. This fact is enshrined in Wikipedia policy at WP:ABOUTSELF: the material in a self-published source like a university's own website must not be "unduly self-serving" if we want to use it. Routine facts are okay to cite to a university webpage, like the name of the rector/president and the number of faculties, etc. If, however, the university's text sounds like it was ripped from a PR brochure, we don't want to use that kind of source.

Now, the text added to the article about the "distinguishing feature of the University of Mannheim [being] its clear focus on business studies and social sciences" was supplied by the BWI, not the University of Mannheim proper. But the BWI's website indicates that it "lends support to... research institutions and universities by serving as the central first point-of-contact in all questions relating to internationalisation" (http://www.bw-i.de/en/services/about-us.html). This reads as if the BWI works with the University, and as a result I don't think the passages about the University of Mannheim in that document are really at arm's length from the University. I think this is especially evident when we read the text itself: it does come across as promotional PR-speak, and the goal of the BWI document—to convince students to choose that area to study—is functionally promotional too. But either way, the text is actually copied directly from page 22 of http://www.bw-i.de/fileadmin/user_upload/redbw-i/informationsmaterialien/studium_in_baden-wuerttemberg/0015_0207_bwi_ND_Broschuere_Studieren_BW_GB_2Aufl_171212_WEB.pdf. There does not appear to be a suitable copyright license on that page or on the BWI's website. This means that we cannot include that text wholesale in Wikipedia due to the copyright policy.

As for the DFG source, it looks like a primary source to me; if I'm reading this correctly, the DFG is providing the grants to the University and is then reporting on the number and quantum of those grants. Primary sources must be used sparingly; they cannot be used for interpretation or for making qualitative conclusive claims about the University. Secondary sources are always preferred. If the DFG is just used to cite one sentence about how much money was granted to the University, I don't have any particular objection to that. But more substantive claims should be supported by a secondary source. For example, we shouldn't use the DFG to support a statement like "The University of Mannheim has a strong emphasis on its core disciplines the economic and social sciences". That sort of statement must be cited to a secondary source that has specifically noted the effectiveness/quality of the University's economic and social science programmes. Otherwise, the statement is pure boosterism. Likewise, large chunks of text should not be cited uniquely to primary sources; see the guideline at WP:WPNOTRS. When writing an article, the building blocks should be the reliable secondary sources. If we start building entire passages out of primary sources, we have effectively made them into the building blocks, which is exactly backwards (and contrary to policy).

It is easy to want to make a Wikipedia article into a "completionist vessel" that describes everything about the subject in incredibly precise detail. But this idea runs into three problems. First, Wikipedia's policy on verifiability suggests that not all true statements merit inclusion in an encyclopedia; verifiability takes precedence over truth. Second, Wikipedia's primary source policy limits the extent of their use in articles. Third, Wikipedia's stance on promotional content (see WP:NOT) means that we must be mindful not to include tonnes of small details that as a whole paint the subject in a non-neutral, favourable light. Instead, the guiding question should always be "what policy- and guideline-compliant facts from reliable, independent sources can we include in this article?". Yes, this means that we may have to leave out information that we know to be true. There is still a place for primary sources—to be used sparingly in supplementary fashion to cite basic, simple facts. Think of them as filling in a few of the basic factual blanks in the article, the sorts of things that are uncontroversially true and verifiable but not explicitly set out in reliable, independent sources. But for more complex, controversial, lengthy, substantive or judgment-y statements, reliable independent sources are the only way to go. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a procedural note, I try to follow TransporterMan's personal 3O standards, meaning I'm not going to edit this article in a way that is related to the content questions being discussed. I'm also not an arbiter or a purveyor of the absolute truth: I'm just another Wikipedia editor who has stated their understanding of policy and guidelines as they relate to this article. I don't plan on being an active participant in this talk page discussion in the future either; consider my 3O as an informal "hey, what do you think"-style response from an uninvolved editor. And of course there are alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for content-based issues if this third opinion does not help settle the matter; see WP:DRR. /wiae /tlk 17:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you very much for your opinion and I will accept Wikipedia's policy on citation even though I must confess that it goes a bit against common sense and my knowledge of how primary sources are often distorted in secondary sources as is also often the case with quality newspapers which are considered as "reliable" sources by Wikipedia. Check out this article as an example if you like (it's in German but it's worthwhile putting it into Google Translate): http://www.bildblog.de/5704/wie-ich-freiherr-von-guttenberg-zu-wilhelm-machte/ Nevertheless, I thank you for giving me a qualified and detailed answer on how the Wikipedia works. GiniVanDango (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
known issue. see citogenesis. There is rarely anything new under the sun in WP Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Mannheim&oldid=1202565169"