Talk:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

SAT scores and statistics

I think there was an error in posting SAT range stat on this page. If middle 50% (25%-75%) scored 1020 - 1290, then how can 34% of the students score higher than 1300? There would be top 25% of incoming '06 freshmen scored above 1300 and there still remains that other 9% w/in 25-75% range that had scored above 1300. It looks like somebody lowered the median SAT range by a full 100 points from actual data for display. I think 1120-1390 is what you were trying to list for 25%-75% SAT range for incoming freshmen (as U.S.New and Wrld Rep. lists as well). Also, I suggest double checking ACT range as well since the data also may possibly have been manipulated.

Someone edited the incoming class statistics the other day, and I have not been able to confirm or deny them. However, every edit seemed to be negative so it could have been subtle vandalism. I really don't know where I can find the statisics listed for the freshman class of 2006, but I have found some for the freshman class of 2005. I will not have time to go looking for this information over the next couple of days, so feel free to fix it or list a site with the info here. Verad 13:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Prehaps someone should create separet articles for these events and link them up to the history section of the article. That is how Kent State dealt with a similar situation. See Kent state. Remember 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

1924 'Championship' redux

There is a difference between 'winning' a national championship and being 'awarded' a national championship. (this issue is being raised again) Be precise ... on what day and place did unc-ch 'win' this 'championship'? Duke53 | ^Talk 17:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that's how they were awarded back then (by the Helms Foundation). Do you dispute the championship, or just the wording in the article? See [1] Dubc0724 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on the page

Some person is constantly manipulating listed SAT scores (lowering it by full 100pts). This is completely childish and ought to stop now. Is there a moderator whom that can prevent this sort of problem? The correct SAT range for middle 25-75% is 1220 - 1390 with 54% scoring over 1300. Every time I visit this page all of these values are lowered by 100 points. http://www.admissions.unc.edu/academics/factsandfigures.htm - is the website that lists the correct 2005 incoming freshmen data as I reference in correcting the data on this page continuously. I'll also list 2006 profile in near future (Carolina First chart on UNC website contains 2006 incoming freshemen profile but I'll verify those before posting them).

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Scottlh"

BJ Surhoff

An IP account just took BJ Surhoff off the page (in the Athletics section), but I believe according to WP:BIO that he certainly counts as notable, having played for many years in the major leagues. Should he be added back? I left a note on the talk page for the IP as well. DukeEGR93 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I did the whole bold thing and put Surhoff back. DukeEGR93 03:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

New template

I created a template for UNC and I wanted to allow others to look at it and make changes to it before I started putting it on all the UNC pages. So here is the template of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]. Let me know what you think. Remember 16:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oldest University?

The article keeps bouncing back from whether UNC was the first state-chartered university or not because it was the first to be built, but it's still fact that the University of Georgia was created first, and thus should be recognized as the first state-chartered university. UNC should be recognized as second, but none of this duplicitious "it's the first state university, but not really" stuff.Haverton 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Did the University of Georgia educate students before the University of North Carolina? No, it did not. The primary functional focus of a university is to educate those enrolled, a fact that the vast majority of society understands. UGA was not open to students, and therefore not fulfilling its purpose for existence. That's just the way it is.

--65.13.152.244 22:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All the excuses in the world doesn't change the fact that UGA was chartered in 1785 and UNC in 1789, and if 1785 comes before 1789, then UGA, even on paper, still existed before UNC and therefore is the oldest state university. QED. Haverton 02:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reread your own Wikipedia entry:

"Portions of the original land grant were sold to raise $7,463.75 by 1798, and on July 2, 1799 the Senatus Academicus met in Louisville, Georgia and decided to officially begin the University.

The first meeting of the university's board of trustees installed its first president, Abraham Baldwin, a native of Connecticut and graduate of Yale University. This meeting also identified the 633 acres (2.6 km²) on the banks of the Oconee River on which the university was to be built (which was officially part of Jackson County at that time)."

Rereading your history, I'm less convinced that UGA has even a reasonable claim to being the oldest public university. UGA did not exist in any fashion other than a nebulous idea when UNC was actually graduating students. No work was even done on UGA when UNC had already graduated numerous classes. Sorry, but there's no way anyone is going to buy into the ridiculous notion that a mere intangible idea on a scrap of paper constitutes a university. UNC has an entire decade on UGA.

--artifactblue 08:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"The University of Georgia was incorporated on January 27, 1785 by the Georgia General Assembly, which had given its trustees, the Senatus Academicus of the University of Georgia, 40,000 acres (160 km²) for the purposes of founding a “college or seminary of learning.” The Senatus Academicus was composed of the Board of Visitors and the Board of Trustees and the Georgia Senate governed both boards"

UNC needs to shape up because it seems its students have a problem with selective illiteracy. The university had a charter and a board of trustees, it just needed a physical site. Regardless, it still existed. If you can somehow get the NC legislature to charter UNC before Georgia, then UNC will be the first state university. Until then, be happy with 2nd place. Haverton 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you're on this page, since the differences between the respective definitions of "first public university" are made amply clear in the article. I presume you're simply here to talk shit, a skill at which you don't quite excell.

Regardless, I'll try to make the following points clear to you again. UNC existed as an actual functioning institution before UGA, and UGA had a charter before UNC. That much is clear IN THE ARTICLE. However, I have made it clear that I, like the rest of society, believe that a university is a functioning, physical place with a discernable objective. You cannot change this. The year 1785 means nothing, except for the inception of an idea. Though a board was selected, it did not even meet until well after UNC was graduating students. So, in 1791, where was UGA? Where could I find it? What purpose was it fulfilling? Where were its students? Did exist in any other form, other than a plan for the future? No, it existed only as a plan. I might add, as well, that UGA was not even fulfilling the objectives stated in its charter. Hell, even UGA's Wikipedia article states, in effect, that the University wasn't even officially started until years after UNC opened. I can't belabor these points enough, it seems.

Anyway, I'm far from illiterate. I suppose if I ever fail out of UNC, however, I'll try your perspective and come to UGA. Let me check those university rankings...yeah, I'm sure that they'll take me in a heartbeat.

Cheap shot? Hey, if you're going to be a prick, then I'll be a prick. I have no problem with that. I'm done with this little argument.

--Artifactblue 02:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and furthermore, the UGA page would reflect the compromise between the respective definitions of "first public university" if you and your cohorts would stop blanking, deleting and manipulating theat aspect of the article to suit your tastes. Classy stuff.

--Artifactblue 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Faculty Info Incorrect?

Under the "Class Structure" sub-heading, it says "Faculty with Ph.D's: 63%" -- this seems low for a university with the stature of UNC. Where was this information found? Perhaps it's skewed due to the large number of grad students teaching intro and core courses, but 63% still seems low. --172.131.131.220 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it's 90% based on UNC:Academics:Facts and Figures. I changed the text. DukeEGR93 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Notable Athletes

The list of notable athletes who went to Carolina seems to be unnecessary for this page. I think that this information could be limited to several fewer names and that the full list would be better on the North Carolina Tar Heels page. Opinions? Verad 22:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but you removed the wrong names. I think it should be restored until we come up with a better solution. Ebtunc2006 03:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted pending a better solution... It seems to me that the UNC page uses too many lists, and the one in the athletics section is one of the worst. There are so many names listed there as being "notable" without any elaboration on that designation. Surely there is a good way to reduce the list on this page and make sure that every "notable" name is listed on the North Carolina Tar Heels page with a reason as to why. Verad 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The list seemed to be getting clogged, particularly with recent alumni who have yet to accomplish any particularly notable achievements as professional athletes. I removed Marlins pitcher Andrew Miller, who has had one mediocre season in the majors, Red Sox prospect and minor leaguer Daniel Bard, NFL free agent Brian Simmons, tennis player Nick Monroe, runner Shalane Flanagan, Charlotte Bobcats Sean May and Raymond Felton and ESPN announcer Stuart Scott.

None of these folks, aside from Stuart Scott, have made their respective sports all-star teams, won a major event, or even been honored as their league's top rookie. If being a professional athlete is the only standard needed to be on this list, then it needs to be much longer. But that would be unweildy. Stuart Scott doesn't belong because of the way the list is introduced. He is an announcer, not an "alumni from the varsity athletic program."

I left current professional athletes who have been recognized within their sport, and the iconic retirees such as Eddie Pope and Michael Jordan. I'll happily revert if that's what people want. Ncjon (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You really should add James Worthy next to Michael Jordan (both won an NCAA championship and NBA championships). He was key to the Lakers' success (third behind Magic and Kareem). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.69.114 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why someone would vandalize a talk page with a random skating video is beyond me. THE evil fluffyface 18:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Interlocking NC Blue.gif

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability Tag

The article has been tagged for verifiability qualms, yet I do not see anything especially contentious or in need of citation. Is there a specific reason it was tagged?--Artifactblue 21:132, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Rivalry issues (NCST university at Raleigh and dook university), I would imagine. I can't wait for some conspiracy theories to explain why. Ebtunc2006 05:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup--please elaborate...

Whoever tagged the article with the cleanup tag, will you please elaborate on what exactly you think needs cleaning up? Thanks. Wikipediarules2221 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Same thing for the verification tag, please. 41 references is a lot and just sticking the tag at the top of the article does not accomplish much of anything. Thanks. Wikipediarules2221 18:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

While I didn't add the cleanup tag, I can tell you things to do to improve the article, partly because of my work on Georgia Institute of Technology and other uni articles. In particular, the article has a lot of easily identifiable/outstanding issues, regardless of the fact that some sections are referenced and well-written... consider this a quick peer review.

1. Longer lead, please
2. Longer History section
3. Fewer external links in Campus
4. Subsection Academics, convert external links to refs or wikilinks
5. Rename "student organizations" to "student life" and expand accordingly
6. Add sources to the traditions section
7. Expand the description of List of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill alumni; see FA/A/GA-class uni articles for an example of a good paragraph or two about a school's alumni.
8. Move the faculty to a sub-article (same concept as the alumni list)
9. Use more citation templates
10. Refs go after punctuation, not before it.
11. The only bold text in the article should be in the lead

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill seal.png

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Andy Griffith1.jpg

Image:Andy Griffith1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Who's on First? UNC vs. UGA (and now) vs Wm & Mary?

In reference to:

04:14, 25 March 2008 ElKevbo (Talk | contribs) (45,071 bytes) (→History: and that also seems to be "true" (history is messy and I tire of institutions squabbling over who was first as each uses different measures of "firstness"))

I am as tired of the squabbling as you are. I was reverting to text that seemed to have been stable since 2006, based on discussion in the Talk page for UNC. I did not do it without consideration.

As for William & Mary, you are correct, I was wrong, it is a public university and is unquestionably older. But it was not chartered as a state (or in the case of Virginia, commonwealth) university, which is the usual bone of contention between UNC and UGA, and therefore I did not see that its inclusion here was relevant.

I will now return to my gnomish existence and leave the "big" pages alone. --Hennap (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)