Talk:University of Delaware/Archives/2014

Statistics

You should fix the statistics with the data from http://www.udel.edu/IR/facts/ because you don't have total you seem to have a mix of graduate and undergraduate stats.

Nate:

Racial Makeup	N	%
White	13,233	84.9
African American	865	5.6
Hispanic	570	3.7
Asian	524	3.4
Native American	39	0.3
Non-Resident Alien	158	1.0
Other	191	1.2

This is fixed Emurph 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

ResLife controversy

Okay, so the phrase "against student protest" under the ResLife controversy seems to suggest that all students were protesting the reinstatement of the reslife program. Friends of mine attended that faculty senate meeting and I know there were also a bunch of pro-reslife students along with a bunch of anti-reslife students. We need to maintain an NPOV; if were going to incorporate student feelings than we need to say there was a 'mixed reaction' to the new reslife program. Further, I would refute saying that the program was the exact same as the old one, as the paragraph suggests. I would recommend a comprehensive rewrite of the section that is NPOV. --Pruiz (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul, how about "against some student protest"? While the revived program is not "exactly" the same as the old one, it is the same program. - Schrandit (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. "Some student protest" sounds better. I edited the section and sourced the new program. --128.175.77.240 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the NAS statement seemed to again bias the section- I rewrote the sentence from a NPOV to recognize that they are a longtime critic of the ResLife program. I do support the NAS statement's inclusion, but I don't support making it seem like the NAS is a neutral observer.--Pruiz (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know that the NAS was previously a critic of the reslife program? - Schrandit (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a SourceWatch snippet about the NAS in the section about the controversy. Also, to break up the argument about the old vs. new programs, we should provide some external links to the program info on the Faculty Senate page. Also, regarding student protest, I know there's a Review piece out there that simply gives a general summary of who was at the Faculty Senate meeting to voice opinions.141.158.54.107 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Any idea where that review piece can be found? - Schrandit (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's The Review's website. Might be archived there. Jrssr5 14:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article sounds too much like it was written by the university's marketing agency. It even uses first person pronouns (e.g. our) in some places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceran (talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the tone is too positive. Someone is editing things to sound better than they should. Plus, the line about Kiplinger's claimed UD was in the top 20 public institutions, when the actual honor was for being "best value." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.186.179 (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ResLife

I cleaned up the short section on the current issues regarding UD ResLife... it really wasn't structured in a neutral PoV and reflected FIRE's assertions rather than UD ResLife. Further, it claims that this program only existed for first year students, when in reality this existed as a campus wide program. (I feel that the person who wrote this didn't have a tremendous knowledge of the curriculum itself.) The reality is, UD ResLife lead the nation in curriculum based residence hall education. ACPA held its Residential Curriculum Institute at UD to teach other universities how to model programs after UD's. This section needs to be longer and reflect why ResLife initiated the program, its main ideas, the issues in individual liberties it brings up, and what it means for a residence hall education. [1] Curriculum based residence hall educations aren't anything new-- UD started it 4 years ago, and now is being criticized. --128.175.224.44 21:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

More on UD ResLife. I keep deleting the clutter in the section and it keeps reappearing. The reality was that FIRE brought the case to the university, not faculty nor students. I would say that the faculty and students did not have anything to do with the FIRE controversy, and should not be included among those who criticized the ResLife program. If you want to discuss the two faculty members who provided FIRE with the information, you can, but it seems to clutter the section. The second point that keeps getting deleted is the "minorities and racist" comment. The sentence is: "The controversy originated from training programs given to resident assistants that suggested all white people were inherently racist." The being in minorities/majority part of that section seems to rehash the "inherently racist" part of the sentence. Moreover, it doesn't flow with the section and sounds structurally awkward. Either make it relevant and flow nicely or leave it out entirely. --128.175.224.70 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You have proof that FIRE brought the issue independent of contact from students/faculty? Many, many students and faculty were offended by the program and were a part of the controversy. I'd say it’s on you to leave the information in and make it flow nicely, to take the information out is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. - Schrandit (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The reality was that FIRE brought the case to the university, not faculty nor students. - this is absolutely, 100% false. Prof. Jan Blits notified FIRE, and FIRE went public with it. See [2] Raul654 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. I've been complaining about UD Res life since Day 1, just ask my parents. I emailed Pres. Harker on Day 2. It's just that we needed someone with the legal/political clout like FIRE to come in to give us a bigger say. I would say in fact that about 50% of students disagreed strongly/relatively strongly with many aspects of the Res. Life thought reform program. To say that only FIRE brought about this is completely ignorant. -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To much clutter

I don't know what anyone else thinks, pictures are nice in all, but their come a point when to many of them and their placement becomes a real detriment to the article, and i think this article is a prime example. Either some re-placement or elimination of some of the pictures needs to happen, i'll wat to see if anyone thinks of anything or does anything if not i'll just do it my self. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

(As the one who took the pictures) - I agree that the placement of the pictures is bad, but your solution is, umm... worse. The best solution would be to add more prose to balance out the pictures. THe 2nd best solution would be to group them into a gallery (using the mediawiki gallery feature) until such time as there is more prose. →Raul654 22:49, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that the placement needs some serious work. I know that a lot more historical background is available if someone is willing to write it; the more text, the better. I think that pic of Gore Hall should be the topmost picture, as well. The Mall is representative of UD, but that particular picture doesn't correspond to much within the text. --Several Times 20:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I reorganized it a little bit; could still use some work. I think the exterior photo of the Trabant could go. --Several Times 16:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I Agree about some pictures, like those of Trabant. Put them in a gallery so they are still there for those that wish to see them. --Mrowlinson 10:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Erm, you're a little late. I put them into a gallery yesterday. →Raul654 20:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Haha, that's what I get for leaving a page open for days and not refreshing. By the way, I'm going to take a new picture of the library next time I get around to it. I think it would look a lot better with a picture taken during summer. Maybe one of the mall during autumn when the leaves are all different colors, too. I'll upload them and let you check them out before I edit since you're basically the guy which maintains this article. --Mrowlinson 09:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to restructure this article. I would like to expand the article a little bit, including information on some of the more prominent student organizations and providing more links into UD's website. However, I think we need to find a way of reorganizing this. Any ideas? I think that we could perhaps group officially sponsored activities (i.e. Music, Sports, Figure skating) under one heading, and then have a separate heading for student organizations and un-official happenings? Comments? Cazort 13:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Faculty

I noticed a few professors I have had (Richard Hanley, Muqtedar Khan) had pages created for them and I wondered if they should be incorporated / listed here in any way. I question this because they are articles within the range of debate between inclusionists and deletionists... that is, these aren't teachers well known like Ben Bernanke. Just curious about thoughts. gren グレン 20:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

New images

I'm removing the images placed in the article by User:Ottawa80 because they're either breaking a lot of the formatting or making whole sections of the article look very awkward. There are already more than enough pictures as it stands. It may be pretty and all, but one picture of The Green ought to suffice. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 17:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Alumni Removal??

Several listed alumni do not seem particularly famous, not enough to be listed here. In particular, I question some of the musicians in local bands, where neither the band nor the artist have their own biographical entries. Does anyone object to their removal? --Brian G 02:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Raul654 04:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be getting to the point where we could justify a List of University of Delaware people or whatever the proper nomenclature would be and only have very well known people on the main page and list notable professors and other alumni there. gren グレン 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, I went ahead and created a List of University of Delaware people page. The list was so long, it seemed to clutter the article. Also, good move on the deletion of local band names. --Pruiz 09:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it called 'list of university of delaware people'... shouldn't it sound a little more professional. maybe list of university alumni? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.24.152 (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Drinking Culture

Since UD is such a big drinking school, I think it is almost mandatory that any comprehensive article on the university cover this unpleasant topic. To do otherwise is to write a strongly biased, POV article. On the other hand, I think we need to be very careful about keeping NPOV in such a section. I am going to look around for facts and references before I construct this section, and I would welcome anyone else's input. Cazort 13:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

in my opinion, there should be a student life section talking about entertainment around town, main street, etc. and the drinking could fit in there - Schrandit 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I go to UD, and I don't really think it's more of a drinking school than any others. There are a good number of parties at any point in time, but it's a big school, so that shouldn't be surprising. Something could be mentioned, however, about the local police and the university administration's crackdown on it, I guess. 128.175.215.55 23:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with above. I'm not certain that UD's drinking problem is all that different than any other mid-sided suburban, or for that matter...any college whatsoever's drinking problem. I say leave it out, or make it brief. (Also a UD student here). --Pruiz 09:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I definately think it belongs there. UD doesn't have a drinking problem by any means, but alcohol is as much a part of UD as 4:20 is a part of UColorado Boulder. 04:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.57.142 (talk)

Music, and comments in general

These comments apply mainly to the music section but I think they could apply to other sections as well. What is the role of this page? I'm not sure it is very valuable to the public to list specific accomplishments (like are listed in the music section). What would be more useful, I think, would be to delete most of the information about achievement, etc, and give more practical information about what kinds of opportunities for performance, lessons, and what kinds of facilities there are at U.D. This stuff is more simple, and more easily quantifiable.

I'm going to add some stuff in the music section and if there are no objections, I will eventually delete the existing material. Cazort 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues for UDaily and other UDEL Public Relations pictures

-(Section courtesy blanked)-

Alumni Mistake?

The alumni listing includes "Chris Robertson - Cosmonaut". First, was he Russian? Second, that links to a page for "Chris Robertson" that's an Australian squash player - wrong guy? - User:StevenGarrity

Another error: I don't think that either campaign manager for the 2008 election actually graduated from U.D. I know both attended, but calling them alumni is misleading, as I'm pretty sure at least one of them (if not both of them) dropped out or transferred. I remember reading this during the election, but I don't remember the source. Nevertheless, since this claim is marked as needing verification, I figured I'd point it out here so someone more adept at this than I am could fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.160.139 (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Alumni can also mean anyone who attended, they don't have to have graduated. Jrssr5 15:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

Basically every image in this article (except the one I took of Dupont Hall) is probably a copyvio. I'm going to be going through, removing them all, and putting in ones I know are OK. Raul654 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Student Residences on the North Green" Isn't that a picture of the South Green (Kent area) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.175.177 (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. Jrssr5 15:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

General Whitewashing

I get the feeling that the UD administration is editing this page anonymously, deleting any material that is negative in any way towards this school. I have repeatedly had various sentences and comments deleted even when they are backed up by hard sources. This practice is absolutely abhorrent and is completely against wikipedia's policy. I am bringing this up here because I want to warn other editors of this page to remain vigilant for such edits. If necessary, I will request semiprotection of this page so that people will at least have to come out into the open by creating official usernames. I'm not trying to depict a negative picture of the school here, really...I love UD. But I want this page to paint an honest picture. One of the reasons I want to get the negative stuff out there is because I care about UD and I think that covering up negative things is one way to keep them from being solved or make them worse. Cazort (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think there are a lot of "weasel words" in here. Sections of this look like it's written like an advertisement. Cazort (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed a couple weasel words and phrases: "world-class" and "particularly substantial," referring to majors.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Any edits coming from IPs starting with 128.175 or 128.4 are coming from within the University of Delaware. 74.109.9.203 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen, pretty much all Wikipedia articles on colleges and universities have been whitewashed. I made an edit to another certain college's page that said that US News & World rated it a 4th (lowest) tier college, and it got removed twice. Bostoner (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Change to "urban" from "suburban"

I made this change to be consistent with other campuses' categorizations, and with the material on the page Urban area and suburban:

• Urban area reads: "An urban area is an area with an increased density of human-created structures in comparison to the areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities, towns or conurbations, but the term is not commonly extended to rural settlements such as villages and hamlets." Suburb reads: "Suburbs are commonly defined as the residential areas which surround the central area of the urban area of a town or city.". UD is located in the central area of the city of Newark and is adjacent to the main commercial areas of the town and the densest residential areas. It seems to fit the definition of "urban" more than "suburban".
• The setting of UD has much more in common with other campuses in small cities that are categorized as "urban", being in the center or on the edge of small cities, such as Franklin & Marshall College, than it does with truly suburban campuses such as UCSD.
• Other "urban" characteristics, such as being on a SEPTA commuter line and having dense public transportation, being located in an area generally more friendly to walking than automobiles.

Yes, the greater surrounding of the town is very suburban, but the immediate vicinity of UD seems much more urban. Let me know if anyone disputes this! Cazort (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

chemical industry reference in lead

The lead section has a sentence that says:

"The school has renowned engineering, science, business, education, urban affairs and public policy, public administration, agriculture, history, chemical engineering, chemistry and biochemistry programs, among others, drawing from the historically strong presence of the nation's chemical and pharmaceutical industries in the state of Delaware."

It may just be poor sentence structure, but this sentence seems to imply that the reason the school has these renowned programs is the historical presence of the chem/pharm industries, which doesn't follow.

I think what was probably intended was to link the strong chem eng/biochem/and chem programs to the industrial link. Even then, I am not sure this is something that should be in the lead without a reference. I'd certainly want a reference if you're suggesting that the education/public policy programs are a result of historical presence of the chem/pharm industry, because that just doesn't follow at all. Yes (some members) of these industries have been generous donors on campus, but I think it's a stretch to credit the success of disparate programs to their "historical presence".

If there are no objections, I will edit this to read:

"The school has renowned engineering, science, business, education, urban affairs and public policy, public administration, agriculture, history, chemistry, chemical engineering, and biochemistry programs." Jbower47 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Images in the Infobox - edit skirmish

What seems to be the issue around the images in the infobox? Should avoid an ongoing edit skirmish if possible, so if the parties could state their points of view here, that would be helpful. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a dispute as to which image is most appropriate to use. Either Image:University of Delaware coat of arms.svg or Image:University of Delaware Circle Logo.jpg. I feel as though Image:University of Delaware Circle Logo.jpg is most appropriate. The University's Office of Communication and Marketing has designated this logo as the school's "Primary Logo" [3]. Furthermore, Image:University of Delaware coat of arms.svg is not even listed on their website as a University Mark. For these reasons, I think it is clear that Image:University of Delaware Circle Logo.jpg is most appropriate. --24fan24 (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In general, there is a strong consensus to use the university seal as the top image in the university infobox. Is the coat of arms image the institution's seal as used diplomas and other official documents? If so, it should almost certainly be the image used at the top of the infobox with the other image placed at the bottom of the infobox.

And please remember that although the institution's official marketing guidelines may give us some useful information we are not bound to abide by it. ElKevbo (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A few minutes of poking around the UDel website indicates that the coat of arms image is NOT the university seal. It's on page 28 of the "Brand Style Guide." Can someone with time and the right tools please extract the seal so we can use it here (or point us to where it's already available)? ElKevbo (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That coat of arms is the picture they put on all the literature and on the backs of the chairs. It's definitely the one we should be using. Raul654 (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note - it looks like the style guide has completely changed since I uploaded the picture. I don't see the coat of arms anywhere on the Communications department's website anymore, although that's where I got it from originally. Raul654 (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, both images are used on my diploma. First is the coat of arm's and then the circle logo.Superman7515 (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New Branding: Remove Shield

The shield is no longer in use by the University. You should see the University style manual for proper use http://www.udel.edu/daretobefirst/digital/March2011/pageflip.html --Pruiz (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Updated the infobox - thanks for the info! GoingBatty (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And I uploaded the seal and placed it in the infobox. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Placement and integration of controversies

In the interests of full disclosure, I want to ensure that everyone knows that I recently reverted and edit that shifted a couple of items out of different sections of the article and into a new "Controversies" section. I did this solely because it's usually much better to have this kind of information integrated into other relevant sections - usually somewhere in the "History" section - where it is placed in context. Many other articles have standalone "Controversies" sections but it's often a bad practice that should be discouraged both because it is usually poor organization and it often gets into issues of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE when controversies are separated from any semblance of context (incidentally, I feel the same way about other material such as the many accomplishments that are often attributed to university presidents that should be placed into context instead of being highlighted as if they were singular, disconnected events accomplished by the president all by him or herself). I happen to work for this university so if anyone believes that is sufficient basis to question or revert my edit then that's fine. But I would - and do - make the same edit to any other article so I don't see this as a big deal. ElKevbo (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I created the "Controversies" section as I thought these issues, where located, seemed to place undue prominence when located int he history section at the beginning of the article. Although a much discussed and covered issue in its time, its importance to the University's history has faded six years later- I doubt few of the current students even know about the controversy and few staff members and local citizens have more than a dim memory of the event. While important to include in the article, in my opinion the history section should only contain benchmarks that were shaped and influenced in significant ways- for instance, opening the University to women students is a significant moment while the creation of the Women's Studies Program, while notable , is not significant. FWIW, I am a life-long Delaware resident and University employee.Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Urban-grant

What does urban-grant mean in the lede? Perhaps there is a better Wikilink, or perhaps there could be an article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a small blurb on Urban Grant colleges in the Land Grant page, but there doesn't appear to be a full article anywhere, and it is the only one (land grant, sea grant, space grant, etc) that doesn't have a full article. I see mentions of being an Urban Grant university on the official website for the University of Rhode Island, but I don't really see anything else just doing a cursory search of Google. I can't tell if it is its own designation or a land-grant subset for urban colleges. I'd be glad to help you with an article if you can find anything more definitive. Superman7515 (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

ResLife an actual controversy of note?

The section seems to lean strongly toward a single POV, with selective quotes, and mostly reflecting the subjective standpoint of one side of the debate. I had not even heard of the controversy despite being an alum. I really have no dog in this fight either way, but it really reads as pretty slanted. I make no implications that it was intentional, but it really needs some sprucing up if it's to be kept. Honestly, I think it's not really notable enough to be given this much space relative to the whole of the rest of the article (which could probably be expanded in some places). In the 270+ year history of the institution, I find it odd that this one event warrants its own section of any length. If anything this should be a sentence in a more general controversies section, but honestly, even then, I don't see this as notable. It really sounds like this one issue several years ago is important to a select few who have a defined interest in a specific perception of it. I think we'd be better of ditching it, or making it a sentence in another section. This is not notable, and the due weight of the opinions presented is heavily skewed. I recognize that the power plant controversey is also a single event, but it's ongoing (as much as we shy away from recentism. I would be perfectly happy to see this moved to a sentence in the discussion of the Chrysler area redevelopment to be fair.12.11.127.253 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the single controversy doesn't merit much of a mention. It was added when it was fresh in the news, but there has been no ongoing coverage of this, showing that it was a fleeting news story, and probably not worthy of extended mention here. --Jayron32 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Also agree, especially per [[WP:UNDUE}}. II recommend removing the entire reference to the ResLife controversy as it obviously as not withstood the test of time. Wkharrisjr (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)