Talk:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

University Libraries

It is true there are nearly twenty individual libraries on the UNC campus, and you are correct that not every single one needs to be named in the article. However, please note that the "important" libraries are not only the University Libraries, which encompasses Davis, Wilson and House Undergraduate libraries, as well as the majority of the departmental libraries in the Division of Academic Affairs. There are also the separately administered Health Sciences Library and Law Library, each with its own director, budget, staff and accreditation requirements. In support of this please see the 2nd paragraph at The University Context for Collection Development, the first sentence at University Library System-Administration, and the evidence of the University Libraries' own homepage, which provides links the two separately administered libraries in the upper left corner. Thank you! --Hennap (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but I don't think listing the inner workings of the library system is necessary for the article. It's a rather intricate detail that is no doubt important for those involved, but it's not really something that needs to be said in a general encyclopedia article for the university, where the challenge is certainly to convey the essential information in a reasonable amount of space. Of course if you wanted to break out a separate UNC libraries article, I think it would definitely be worth mentioning there. I don't think I used the word "important" and I'm not making any judgement about any libraries that aren't in the list, so I hope you don't take offense. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing that anyone detail "the inner workings of the library system". My point is that it isn't a single library system, but three separate, distinct and independent library systems within the University. I was hoping for a rephrasing of that section to reflect that, in a sentence or two, supported by the references I provided above. Since Yellowspacehopper has retired from Wikipedia, if another editor doesn't pick up the rewrite in a day or two, I will try to get back to it myself. --Hennap (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Flagship

"university is the oldest institution and flagship of the University of North Carolina system" I'd like to know the reference on "flagship of the University of NC system". It is my understanding that the UNC system does not recognize nor has it designated a flagship university. Glovejr (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have sourced references to the Chapel Hill campus being the flagship. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum. Fletch81 (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why then don't you reference your source in the article so others will not bring it up ad nauseum? Glovejr (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There are already 5 different sources in the article for just that statement. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

why do you say there are "already" 5 different sources in the article, when you just posted those references? Your post makes it sound as if they were there when I asked the question about references.

What is the current thought on "official flagship status" reconigition by the UNC System? From another discussion page: "The UNC Board of Governors has not assigned official "flagship" status to any of our 16 university campuses. UNC-Chapel Hill is certainly the oldest campus, and there is no doubt that the entire University's has benefitted from Chapel Hill's national reputation for academic quality. NC State and UNC-Chapel Hill are acknowledged to be our two major research campuses, but again, neither has been granted any special flagship designation. Joni Worthington --Thunder 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)" Glovejr (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Glovejr, is your statement sourced? Do you have a link, or is it a word of mouth statment from a supposed email? I have provided several links stating that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is the Flagship of the UNC system. It was the birthplace of the system and remains the showpiece of the UNC system. NCSU is the engineering center of the system, but that doesn't automatically denote flagship status. In addition, flagship status need not be officially stated - its the University of North Carolina system, derived from the University of North Carolina, which began in Chapel Hill, not the North Carolina State University system. This seems like a pedantic argument driven by a desire to take away from UNC-Chapel Hill. Fletch81 (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again with the flagship

I have repeatedly linked references to UNC being the flagship of the system. This isn't POV. I am tired of the arguing over it, and once again I appreciate the work being done on the article, but if sourced material is included (which was, and can be found in previous revisions), it shouldn't be deleted. I refuse to get into an edit war over this, but what exactly is the contention with the sourced material? Fletch81 (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The contention was it was that it wasn't neutral. As I've said below, I don't see a reason why it should be included given people have a problem with it. Look at similar universities pages and it just causes problems. Reading the article, it mentions prestige, age, size, etc. so anyone can make their own mind up. It's just too subjective, not least for people out of the U.S. Artichoke2020 (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Too subjective?" I included the wikilink to flagship which adequately describes this connotation. I have provided third party references. Simply because someone is unfamiliar with the term or does not take the time to research the supporting evidence does not make it POV. That is perception on their behalf. That is POV. Fletch81 (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That article has phrases like the term often conveys an assumption of academic superiority. which don't help the argument. Flagship is a very U.S.-centric term, and you have to make a few allowances for that. As I said, I can't see why it's so important. UNC is a source of pride to me whether we write flagship or not. Why do we need to include it so much? Artichoke2020 (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond in the thread below<script type="text/javascript" src="http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>.... Artichoke2020 (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Flagship (yet again)

I've removed a recent addition of the word "flagship" from the lead since concerns were voiced in a peer review that it was POV. The University of North Carolina page has been stable for some time without mention of a flagship, and since it is a largely interpretive term (hence POV) I suggest we leave readers to decide whether it is the flagship in their eyes. Of course it's the "flagship" in my eyes, but I certainly can't see a compelling reason for including it, given that there have been previous edit wars. Correct me if I'm wrong of course. The article has almost made "good article" status and it would be a shame for that to fail over something like this. Artichoke2020 (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a mention to NCSU being the "flagship engineering school" on the system page. Did the folks on the peer review take the time to read the links mentioning the Chapel Hill campus as the flagship? This is hardly POV. Doing a web search of "unc chapel hill flagship" yields several 3rd party mentions of UNC as the flagship. Fletch81 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• There's a guideline somewhere on Wikipedia about Google search as a tool. I forget it's name, but anyway. Sources don't always stop something being POV. If UNC system said flagship it would be great, but they haven't. What is your specific reason for wanting to include it? Artichoke2020 (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My specific reason to include it is the fact that it bears relevance when comparing the role UNC-Chapel Hill plays within the university system to those of other similar founding institutions within a university system. Once again, please read the wikilink explaining flagship. Please see University of Michigan, which has been a featured article, University of Texas, etc. Both include mentions to being the flagship. There is a precedent set for using flagship. This is warranted in this case. Fletch81 (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We're making this argument on two fronts, but you're taking the aforementioned quote out of context. The following, from flagship responds to that: Nevertheless, it is common for state university officials to use the term "flagship" in official contexts, e.g. "As the system's flagship campus, [UMass-]Amherst draws from throughout the Commonwealth, the nation and the world;"[8] "It is a pleasure to report to the General Assembly on the accomplishments and i<script type="text/javascript" src="http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>nitiatives of the State's Flagship University."[9] You may not see it as important and unnecessary for your "source of pride," but that does not change the fact that it is used by many within the UNC system as well as those removed from it, as proven by my references. Removing well sourced content because you don't like it? As I said before, I appreciate the work you're doing on this, but you're heeding the advice of several folks one person on the PR who are removed from the proper usage of this term. Their unfamiliarity with the material is no excuse for removing this reference. Would it make a difference if I went to the peer review and told you to put it back in? Fletch81 (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Would it make a difference if I went to the peer review and told you to put it back in?" isn't especially helpful. I'll take a look at the school pages you mention, but the quote by Berdahl mirrors some of the concerns, not just for UNC or in the peer review, but in other pages on Wikipedia. I'm sure the first peer reviewer wouldn't mind if you left a message on his talk page to ask why he thought it was a bad idea having it there. Why not try that while I check out Michigan, Texas etc? Artichoke2020 (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it was a little chippy, but you get my point. At this point its the opinion of a person conducting a peer review versus my opinion. That's hardly a consensus. Flagship stood in this article for a very long time. Regardless, I've left a message for the editor in question to gauge his/her thoughts on flagship. Fletch81 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's Ok. I'm almost playing devil's advocate here, so it probably makes sense to talk to the editor directly. My personal view is that I would probably favor putting flagship in the lead and then explaining it further down in the article with references there, like we have with other parts. If necessary we can add something about NC State, flagship and engineering there. Artichoke2020 (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with explaining it in the article. As far as including NCSU, that's an entirely new, larger can of worms that we may not want to open. Fletch81 (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• From the peer reviewer: "Re. 'flagship' - it struck me as WP:PEACOCK at the time. However, all my comments were meant constructively, and I would be extremely suprised if they were all useful. 'Flagship' I could live with. I commented on everything that struck me, to give as thorough review as I could. Best wishes for the future of your article. -- Chzz ► 02:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)" Fletch81 (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's good. Let's put the wikilinked "flagship" back and think up a sentence or two to add further down the article. Where do you think would be best to put them? Artichoke2020 (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is NC State's view, by the way: [1] Artichoke2020 (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm well aware of NCSU's view on the matter. Try finding a 3rd party link that expresses the same POV. You've been doing a great job of formatting and linking, so I'll defer the placement of flagship to you. Fletch81 (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure this paper is publicly accessible, but it make explicitly calls UNC the flagship and is from a respected peer reviewed article, so I try to incorporate it as a reference. I can't find anyone calling NC State a flagship other than NC State, so, with regret, I don't think their claim can be included.

State Policy and the Public Research University: A Case Study of Manifest and Latent Tensions

Author(s): Susan H. Frost, James C. Hearn, Ginger M. Marine

Source: The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 68, No. 4, (Jul. - Aug., 1997), pp. 363-397

Published by: Ohio State University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2960008

Artichoke2020 (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've added and referenced a sentence about being the "flagship" in the history section around where the UNC system is mentioned. I'm using NCSU and UNCG references to establish dates and the Journal of Higher Education for its explicit mention. I think that's pretty solid. I'm not bothered if we lose the "de facto", but it struck me as a sensible modifer.Artichoke2020 (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Comments on how to improve this article are located here. miranda 13:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I've removed a few of the fields from the infobox as it is stretching so far down in the article and squeezing the history section. Almost all the infomation is in the article elsewhere (sometimes in the lead, per WP:LEAD) so hasn't been lost. I have no problem with anyone adding them back per WP:BRD, it's just featured articles such as Michigan and Duke have much less. Artichoke2020 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The infobox definitely needed to have some of the fields removed since some of them were of little, if any value. However, I think the "Motto in English" field should be put back, since the motto in English is already in the infobox, just without the field, so it won't be taking up anymore room. I'm going to add that back unless someone has an objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles such as Michigan and Duke have used it the way it was, and it's obvious that it's Latin.152.2.133.109 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you about it being obvious that it is Latin. To someone who doesn't know anything about Latin they could easily think it was Italian or some other language. And just because the Duke article dosen't have the field in its info box is meaningless. Lots of other good university articles do have the field in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to read the motto article linked from the template. Moreover, I tend to go with the opinion of FA reviewers. Trying to assume good faith, but it's rather tendacious editing. Please sign your comments too. 152.2.133.109 (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all it is in good faith, as I am trying to improve the UNC article as I am sure you are as well. And I do appreciate all your efforts as I would like to see the UNC article pass the GA nomination process as much as you do. However, it’s funny to me that you complain about signing comments when you’re using an IP address. Furthermore, there are other featured articles such as Georgetown that do at least say their motto is in Latin. I also went back and looked at Duke’s article since you keep referring to it and it turns out that the Duke article also said their motto was Latin from November 2006 until May 23, 2008 when Artichoke2020 decided to change it. And I believe Artichoke2020 was the exact same person who changed it on the UNC article around the same time. Unfortunately, it appears that Artichoke2020 has left us and is unable to defend his own edit. I’m so glad you’re so adamant about defending it though. Somehow I don’t think I’m the one engaging in tendacious editing. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Latin

Universitas Carolinae Septentrionalis is correct. An alternative could be Universitas Carol. Septent. denoting the abbreviated form of North Carolina, I suppose. Remember the seal says "Seal of the University of North Carolina", and sadly in Latin it isn't as simple as just removing a word. If there is a large amount of debate I would just remove any Latin rather than have an edit war as it isn't especially important. Alternatively, write the UNC Classics Departments or check this book (or similar ones) on Latin grammar.

Greenough, James B. & Allen, J.H. "Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar." Dover Publications. ISBN 0486448061 (2006 version) — 152.2.133.109 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GA comment

I'm not reviewing the article, but adding a comment to whoever does; there should be a mention of the theatre program and the fact that a regional theatre is present on the campus, and that there is a large undergraduate and highly respected graduate program in acting on the campus, which currently gets no mention in the article. That should be included if this is to be GA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all colleges have mention of a theater program. If you would like, I am sure that you could add that section. However, I am not going to base a pass/fail on an issue such as the UNC page not having a theater program mentioned. That's equivalent for a basketball fan saying that this article doesn't mention Dean Smith or Michael Jordan and should fail for that point. miranda 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. {{sofixit}} would be an appropriate response to this comment; failing to list this article as a GA would not. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jordan is there... :) 152.2.133.109 (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have promoted this article. Great job. miranda 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no article review done, so this cannot be passed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So does this article have GA status or not? Gimmetrow 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• From the review page above it says

"Went through the article. Extensive progress has been made. Thus, I am promoting this to GA. miranda 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)"

but Judgesurreal777 removed the tag. Can an article be delisted so quickly? HolomorphicHamster (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you reviewing the article off the talk page? Do the normal thing and actually review it where everyone can see and not somewhere else. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. If you look at the template, the GA review box at the top of the page has a link that creates a new page where a review can be placed, and that isn't on the talk page either. It doesn't mention in the GAN instructions that the review has to be on the talk page, and the review seems well commented and in order. Maybe I've missed something, but I can't see a problem. HolomorphicHamster (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• It seems there is confusion about the location of User:Miranda's review, so it is temporarily transcluded below. HolomorphicHamster (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a subpage. And, no. Judgesurreal777 shouldn't have deleted the review. I do this on my GAs all of the time. There is no Wikipedia standard on placing reviews. Also, Judgesurreal has conflict of interest in removing the article based upon a comment here prior to my assessment. miranda 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the page to a subpage of this article leaving the redirect from Miranda's subpage. I don't personally care where the review is, but there should only be one copy, and I think the GA idea is to keep the reviews with the articles. Gimmetrow 02:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Kind of wished you had discussed the move with me first, Gimmetrow. I would like to keep a copy in my userspace for future reference. miranda 02:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then move it back. Doesn't matter to me. Gimmetrow 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have put the article at GA review. If information on the acting program and regional theatre, probably a small paragraph of about 4 sentences, is added I will withdraw the nomination. The article is very very good otherwise, and I will fully support its GA status if you do this as it will then be comprehensive. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's incredibly myopic and pointish. You're the only one here who seems both knowledgeable of and concerned about this one minor topic. If it's so important to you, add it yourself. It's ridiculous to threaten to "veto" the article's GA status over something so minor and easily remedied. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As my IP will reveal, I live in Chapel Hill and have never heard of this acting program. If it were notable, that would be a concern for a featured article and not a good article. Anyway every school has a theatre/theater of one kind, and they are rarely mentioned in articles of any standard. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think not including a specific acting company or drama department in the article precludes it from being GA (now, if it were missing the entire academics section, that would be different). But keep in mind that becoming GA doesn't halt editing; if you feel strongly that this should be included, please feel free to add it; just make sure that you include citations, especially if you're going to write it as a "highly acclaimed" program, or include specific ranking statistics. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Good article reassessment page is here. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

logo vs. seal

Hi there! I notice that the infobox at the top of the article currently has two images, one of the university's seal and one of the university's logo. I don't think this is particularly in keeping with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, particularly #3A:

Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

Because the logo and the seal both relay the same information, i.e., a university-approved visual identity, I don't think you can rightfully include both in the article. I've boldly removed the seal and moved the logo up to its place (purely a stylistic choice in picking one over the other), but I wanted to leave a note here on the talk page about it. I'm certainly willing to listen to counterarguments, though. Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 15:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted you because other universities, such as University of Texas, University of Southern California, et. al. have these in there articles. This is something that you should take up with WikiProject Education and not just one article. Cheers! miranda 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, "other stuff exists" isn't really a valid argument for including both images in this article. I'll happily go remove the images from those articles, too, if that's what it takes. It's not a matter of a particular WikiProject, either, though I'm going to put a post over on the WikiProject Universities talk page. Rather, this just doesn't jive with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. I'll hold off on removing it again until perhaps others have had a chance to voice an opinion. Thanks for your input, though. Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 16:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the University of Southern California article doesn't include both a university seal and logo. Rather, it includes the university seal and a logo for the USC athletic teams, which I think is acceptable under NFCC #3A (since it identifies two different and distinct things). Esrever ^(klaT) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is insanity... The article has gone through peer review, GA review, GA reassessment, and thousands of edits with the logos... I think this is a debate that should be had on the WikiProject Universities talk page and not here, as it is not a point isolated to this article by any stretch of the imagination. LostOldPassword (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's already there. I'll really shoud read more carefully... :) LostOldPassword (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Seal

Every few months someone seems to be changing the seal to a copyvio version with opaque background and bright (non-Carolina) blue detail. If the seal doesn't have the registered trademark symbol that the official one has, then it isn't the correct seal by definition, so please don't change it unless the university issues a new one (which seems unlikely for the foreseeable future). Thank you. LostOldPassword (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who changed the seal back to the English version, but I do think the English version is the one that should be used. Both the English and Latin seals are official seals of the university, but the English seal is used far more frequently than the Latin one. Also, the trademark symbol is technically not part of the seal itself. It is merely used to alert people to the fact that it is a registered trademark, which is actually redundant in wikipedia where you can access all the rights information for any image simply by clicking on it.Rreagan007 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

But the trademark denoted it as the approved version (you don't trademark something without a reason). Also the English version uploaded wasn't even the semi-official English version from the trademarks and licensing page, but a very old version. We can't use an old version to currently represent the university and should they change this logo, then this should be changed too. No doubt you can find webpages with the old English logo, but if you look on official university documents (i.e. paper) and around campus you will always see the Latin version. LostOldPassword (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the "Graphic Identity Manual", and it says the Latin is for the university and the English for licensed merchandise, if that helps clarify. I don't know if the manual is online, but it's probably available from UNC on request. In this context we're representing the university so the Latin would be the appropriate. Of course a case could also be made that we should only be using the signature mark logo (i.e. the stylized Old Well). LostOldPassword (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Graphic Identity Manual is located here online, and it does show all 3 versions of the seal. As you can see there are 2 English versions, one with a scalloped edge and one with a smooth edge, so the English version without a scalloped edge isn’t an “old” version. I think using the English version makes more sense because people can actually read what it says, but I’m not going to fight you on which version of the seal should be used because I think it’s really more a matter of personal preference. However, I do think we need to find a better version of the Latin one at least because the current one being used doesn’t show up very well (at least on my computer screen).Rreagan007 (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The color was old on the other one (it certainly isn't the sickly blue version that was uploaded), and as stated in the manual all three logos are official, but do not have the same purposes. Look at a coin and think e pluribus unum for a use of Latin where you would expect English for legibility. LostOldPassword (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok first let me say I appreciate your passion for the UNC wikipedia page, but I think you should tone things down a little. I'm not being "a little naive." This is the English version of wikipedia. I seriously doubt more than 1 or 2 percent of people that read this page can actually read Latin. And calling reversion to the English seal "possible vandalism" on your editor's comment is a bit much also. But you're right, the manual does say they have different purposes, but reading the manual I can't tell which version would be most appropriate for use on a wikipedia page. I guess they didn't think about that use when they last updated the manual.Rreagan007 (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly apologize for that, I got a little carried away. LostOldPassword (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That happens to me sometimes too. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find a better version of the seal also. LostOldPassword (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

GreatRreagan007 (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just checked the university licensing page, and that's the exact same version, but converted to PNG. Not sure if that made a difference. I'll check. The UNC system has a better quality version, so I'll see if that source has individual campus ones also. LostOldPassword (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've colorized and uploaded a screen grab from the manual itself. It's slightly larger. I don't mind if you revert back to the old one, though. LostOldPassword (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think that looks a lot better. Thanks. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the official UNC-CH Design ServicesManual [2] there are three versions of the University Seal authorized by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. One of these, the Latin University seal, may only be used by University departments. The talk above about the English seal being an old, outdated version is incorrect. Dbalderzak (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The one you uploaded is outdated, not English ones in general, and note the different uses. Also that version does not have a transparent background so doesn't look good. You've cut the rest of the sentence off, because in actual fact you'll see that none should really be used on Wikipedia, but we're invoking the fair use clause of United States copyright law. LostOldPassword (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the entire discussion you'll see that we came to the conclusion that English seal vs. Latin seal is really just a matter of preference because using the seal on wikipedia doesn't fit into either of the categories in the manual. I actually prefer the English version, but I think the Latin one that's currently being used is perfectly acceptable. If there is still a dispute over which to use, I think we should look and see what the university itself does for miscellaneous uses of the seal. If my memory is correct, I believe the university seal located in the middle of the quad is the Latin version. If that is so, I think we should probably assume that is the seal they would want to be representing the university on wikipedia since they have gone though the trouble to carve it in stone. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I endorse wholeheartedly the above summary by Rreagan007. I think you're right about the quad. I would check to confirm, but it's pushing 100° F outside... I know the metal seals on columns on the corner of Cameron and Columbia are Latin, though. LostOldPassword (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn

• I've removed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill per the WP:FAC instructions:

  Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.

  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If anyone has any objections to the nomination, could they post here? I've left notes on their talk pages, but the top contributors to the article all seem to be inactive. Hippo (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Add something about the theatre department/playmakers, and I will support. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on a separate article, so I'll try to find a place to link it in. I could do with some help finishing that too, if you know much about the subject. The article is at Dramatic and performing arts at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Hippo (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that article need some love. I hope someday to unmerge the Playmakers Repertory Company article, but maybe some other time. Great job adding something about theatre to this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the article, I'm thinking it could use an Alumni section at the end. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I know other schools have them, but I wonder how to really add one without it becoming rather POV. I'm not convinced the other pages have succeeded. There's also a separate alumni page that really needs some work, but I guess could be linked in from this page. Hippo (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the article was nominated yesterday for FA, so now comments can now be directed to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Hippo (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it in the citation?

In Academics > Libraries, the article states that ibiblio is the 3rd oldest site on the web, however I cannot find this in either of the citations given. Perhaps I am just not being able to find it, though. 10nitro (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see it either, so I've removed it. It's certainly not impossible that it's true, though. Hippo (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"North Carolina State University at Raleigh"

I can't see a reason for using this as opposed to common name in this article. I can't see any evidence of a precedent and not even that university itself even uses it. The page name is North Carolina State University, and I think it's best left on that page in this instance, as after all if we're following that logic shouldn't we therefore put [[University of California, Berkeley and University of California, Los Angeles instead of "UCLA" and "UC Berkeley" later in the article. Hippo (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute for disambiguation

hi, i noticed this link in wikipedia: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/University_of_North_Carolina

i think the unc link should be redirected at it. the unc abbreviation is unc-ch.

please refer to the website below.

http://www.ga.unc.edu/UNC_Schools/profiles/current/

look how unc has abbreviated the school uncch under apa credit accepted. i, therefore, dispute the misleading redirection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extensiontf (talk • contribs) 01:51, June 16, 2008

I can understand your confusion. Officially the "University of North Carolina" is the statewide system of universities in North Carolina, and this system can be abbreviated as simply "UNC." However, for historical reasons, the "University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" can (and often is) referred to as simply UNC. To avoid confusion, the University of North Carolina (system) is rarely referred to as simply UNC and is much more commonly referred to as the "University of North Carolina system" or simply the "UNC system." When someone refers to "UNC" they will most often be referring to the "University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill." On Wikipedia, the criteria used to decide what page redirects where is the likelihood that a person typing in an entry is searching for a particular page. Therefore, since it is much more likely that a person typing in "UNC" is looking for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UNC should direct here and not to the University of North Carolina (system) page. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that, also I don't recall ever seeing UNC-CH in official literature. It's an obvious shorthand, but not really an abbreviation that's ever used outside of informal correspondence. Hippo (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Another quick note on etymology, since having looked at the archives, there was a discussion a while back. Apart from just being parts of the name, "North Carolina" is almost always used to refer to the North Carolina Tar Heels and not the university as a while, while alumni, people in The Triangle, and Dick Vitale, tend to exclusively use "Carolina," hence Carolina-Duke rivalry. But it is disputed by the University of South Carolina, cf. Carolina-Clemson rivalry, and I wince at the thought of cross-border raids returning here... ;) Old alumni (if any are still alive), could use "NCU," as in the alma mater Hark The Sound. Also from experience people from outside the U.S. sometimes use "Chapel Hill," also shown by the disambiguation/begriffsklärung page on German Wikipedia for Chapel Hill. If it's any consolation even the scoreboard at a UVa-UNC scoreboard got confused once, changing the team names halfway through, and later in the season we had "Carolina" and "South Carolina" despite South Carolina having the words "Carolina" embossed on the chest of their uniforms.Hippo (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that we can include every abbreviation and variation for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that exist (University of North Carolina, North Carolina, Carolina, UNC, UNC-CH, UNC-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, and NCU...did I miss any?). However, I do think we should include a few of the most common ones similarly to how the University of Michigan article does. "UNC" which is already included in the article and prehaps "Carolina" and/or "North Carolina." You mentioned the University of South Carolina, and on that page they do list "Carolina" as a name of the university. I would hope that people would not get into an edit war since "Carolina" can refer to either UNC or USC. In regards to "UNC-CH," I think that abbreviation can be officially used to refer to UNC Chapel Hill, but since it is not used all that often I don't see a need to include it here, as there are much more commonly used abbreviations and short-hands that should definitely be included before "UNC-CH" is. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You missed University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill that I've seen on occasion... ;) I think there have been edit wars before from USC, and it's already under attack from NC State per flagship. I'm very attached to "Carolina", but I'd probably just leave the lead as is, as it seemed to be otherwise stable for a month or so prior to today.

Just quickly addressing the link from the system website to the original comment, the abbreviations NCAT, UNCCH, and UNCC would probably also be disputed by the campuses, especially the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where there is a campaign within the city to change the name to "University of Charlotte". Compare also the name change proposal at the North Carolina School of the Arts where one the arguments by students against a change to "University of North Carolina School of the Arts" is that they don't want to be seen as a school of the system's campus in Chapel Hill, cf. University of North Carolina School of Law, which is part of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

At this point my head hurts, so, without ambiguity, I'll leave my computer and wander off the UNC campus to buy a cup of coffee on Franklin Street (which, as an aside, I'm not convinced needs disambiguating from U.S. Route 40 in Maryland). ;) Hippo (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it didn't take too long for a visit from Columbia ([3])... :( Hippo (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see any link for justifications: these are all just point of view. It seems that a legitimate website was provided with sound evidence. All the things mentioned above are supported by evidence--more like "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." --Bill Clinton on Barack Obama. Please revert the point of view back to the Sound evidence that was provided from the official north carolina website. UNCCH is the abbreviation. I dispute this page.--66.30.117.112 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want "UNC-CH" included that's fine with me, but are you seriously disputing that "UNC" is used to refer to the "University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill"? Rreagan007 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"UNC-CH" really is just a shorthand, so not really for formal writing such as an encyclopedia. UNC is almost exclusively used officially. Looking at general usage on Wikipedia as a whole, UNC is the favored term, and that is important when considering the disambiguation. Hippo (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also a point on the "University of North Carolina" system website, while the system itself is very well respected, it tends to take a very hands-off approach to its campuses. It's certainly not the same as the "University of California", where you'll see UC Regents everywhere. I guess the fact is that when something has been refered to as UNC or NCU since the last 18th century it's not going to change in 30 or so years, especially when it has such high profile athletics teams that are officially referred to as "University of North Carolina". All the same, Wikipedia considers third-party sources as reliable, so it is moot what the University of North Carolina system and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill websites say. Hippo (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And I believe the official University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill website is www.UNC.edu Rreagan007 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point; amazing how easy it is to miss the obvious! Hippo (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew I remembered this article, it just took me a long time to find it digging around the Daily Tar Heel archives. As you can see in the article, the individual universities in the UNC system determine the abbreviation for the school, not the UNC system. And from the article it is clear that the university wants UNC to be the official abbreviation and not UNC-CH. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be great to get that as a reference in the article, though I'm not sure how, since per WP:LEAD the lead isn't referenced. It's interesting that the UNC system's Joni Worthington even gets the full name of the university wrong, missing the "at". Hippo (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD doesn't say the lead can't be referenced - it just says that typically it doesn't need to be. And I quote: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material [...] The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations." So, a citation is perfectly understandable (even preferable) in this particular case. -Bluedog423^Talk 00:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I was worried it all or nothing and I'd have to add references for everything.... Hippo (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I seems maybe there is still debate since the redirects were changed, but either way the disambiguation page needs to be the one at UNC (disambiguation) and so has to be done at WP:RM and cannot be done by changing the contents of the UNC page. I would should also point out that the trademarked "UNC" is that of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. See [4] for instance. Hippo (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why must we cite wikilinks that contain citations within them?

This doesn't make any sense at all. The insistence for inclusion of a citation for the songs of the University is redundant, as one can click on the wikilink and find the referenced material. The rest of the article is formatted this way. Why the point of contention by ElKevbo? I understand articles on wikipedia themselves cannot be used as sources, but when the sources are contained within the wikilinked article, it becomes clutter to add a redundant citation on that wikilink. What about this isn't clear? Fletch81 (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:V; it's one of our core policies. I understand the contention that it's a bit silly but at its core it's a good and necessary idea not to cite Wikipedia articles as sources as these articles are easily edited and changed. We need stable sources for citations.

If, however, you want to object that those particular facts are uncontroversial and don't need to be cited then that's a different argument and one in which I don't care to partake. I simply object to the notion that one can rely on other Wikipedia articles as references. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Its obvious that these facts are uncontroversial and don't need to be cited. Fletch81 (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use raw links, though. Also the references should be third party, not from a UNC site. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the raw links. I am curious though about the third party links, though. With certain subjects, its seems that the only information available, or the most thorough information available is from a website affiliated with the subject. There is a lot of excellent information about UNC on the web, but much of it is maintained in the University archives or is information published from University historians. When this is the most thorough information available, and said information isn't contentious or controversial, then why shouldn't it be used? I could understand if this were information that appeared for vanity purposes, but the information in question clearly isn't. I've been around this place for a while, but this seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. Fletch81 (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The comments on the failed featured article are a good place to start. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

“ Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. ”

Information uploaded to a UNC website or held on a UNC server can still qualify as a "third-party" source as long as it was independently produced. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not especially good that a third party reference for the translation of the motto has been replaced by a UNC one now, either. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

First off I do agree with you that the Latin name translation should go. I never really liked the idea of just translating the university name into Latin when there really is no official Latin name for the university (as far as I am aware), but I ignored that because the University of North Carolina system page and the Duke University page seem to do the exact same thing. You might want to remove the Latin names from those pages also. Secondly, I understand the policy about third party sources, but in this case the most authoritative source for what the official university motto is is the university itself. I also believe that this falls under the exception for using self-published sources about themselves. But to make you feel better I have substituted a third party source instead. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to make me feel better, a reliable third-party just removes any doubt. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Holla213's changes

Hi, there's now a dispute on this page about nuetrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holla213 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a neutrality dispute ... it's just an inappropriate level of detail for a lead. Read over WP:LEAD, and try again.Kww (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though the edits make it fit the wp:lead better. it's not an overly broad, non-nuetral lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holla213 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to dive into that level of detail about "Public Ivy". It's wikilinked, so if anyone wants to know what it is, they can click on it and bring up an article. Giving a summary of a third-party book in what is supposed to be a brief summary of an article on a university is what I object to.Kww (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. With the exception of one editor who is now in violation of 3RR, we all seem to be in agreement. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why is the information there at all? It's a point of view sentence from a point of view book, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holla213 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have the information at all? If we remove the ambigious non nuetral comment all together, then I'll be okay. 128.103.142.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Holla213 and his sock, 128.103.142.23, have been blocked for edit-warring. Unfortunately, if I try to fix it, I will cross the 3RR line myself, so I won't do it. I strongly encourage anyone wandering by to fix it.Kww (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Holla213. We need to have the appropriate information. It's non-neutral as is. Recardoz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See Also vs. Notable Alumni

The "Notable Alumni" subhed keeps getting changed to "See Also." That subhed doesn't make sense because the only link underneath it is for the notable alumni list and it also removes from the table at the top of the article a quick link to notable alumni. Ncjon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Seems fine to me - almost every page on Wikipedia has "See Also." Rameses The Ram (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"See also" vs "Alumni" has been an edit war for months. It doesn't really matter what the section is called. I think people keep changing it to "Alumni" in hopes that someone will actually write an alumni section. Personally I think that as long as there is only 1 link in the "See also" section it would probably be better to just leave it as an "Alumni" section. And if more links are added then it can be changed to a "See also" section. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oldest Public University Claim

The claim that UNC is the oldest public university is always in dispute. While it did have the earliest graduating class, it was chartered AFTER another university, namely the University of Georgia. UGA was chartered in 1785, but didn't have classes until 1800. I am partially biased about this, so I will not make this edit, but I do request that a future editor verify this information and make note of it.

128.192.56.109 (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Steve D.

This dispute is clearly addressed here oldest public university in the United States which is linked in the first paragraph of this article. Fletch81 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The link to the oldest public university article is more than adequate. There is no need to go into detail about it in the UNC article. The UGA article also links to the oldest public university article without going into detail. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe UNC's formal claim is the first public (state) university to "open its doors", as can be seen in a photo of a sign on the campus here. — aegreen (talk • email) 04:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

New wikiproject

Trying to create a wikiproject just for UNC-CH webpages. Check it out here - Wikipedia: WikiProject University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Help out if you can. Remember (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

infobox logo removal/inclusion

A discussion regarding logo removal/inclusion that occurred during a recent edit to this article is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Logo as identifying marks in infoboxes. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether the "flagship" status of a university can be presented as objective fact

There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I object to the use of the term 'flagship' on this page and I would suggest that it be changed to reflect the fact that UNC is the oldest university in NC. The term 'flagship'insinuates a degree of superiority not verifiable objectively and the term has an elitist undertone. Why insist on its use when the use of the term creates confusion? Isn't the point that you want people to know it was the first? Why not say that clearly?

I agree. The UNC system has repeatedly been inconsistent in this area, however, at no point in the last 30 years has UNC-CH been labeled as THE flagship. The system has either labeled both UNC-CH and NCSU has flagship universities in their respective areas, or that the system has no flagship at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.14.225.230 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the system has no official flagship, using this term is confusing and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.22.207 (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I also object to the term "flagship", the system has never designated any of the schools as a flagship. It's an inaccurate term and does not make any sense given the history and context of each campus in the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.22.207 (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Although there may not an official designation, there is certainly widespread agreement among scholars that this is a flagship campus. Thirty seconds on Google shows several reliable sources e.g., USA Today, The Education Trust, and The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. I'm sure we can provide many, many more references if you'd like.

And by the way: Not only do you seem to be editing against consensus but you're consistently breaking the university infobox in the article. Stop doing that. ElKevbo (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I know the NC State people don't like it, but UNC is the flagship university of the UNC system. Whether it is "official" or "unofficial" doesn't really matter. As long as it has reliable sources backing it up (and it does), it should not be removed from the article without consensus. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Should we nominate this for an FA review?

I haven't contributed too much to this article, but since this is a GA already I was wondering if we could submit this article for an FA review. This would be good for the UNC wiki project group and overall for good. I'm willing to help out with the corrections that are pointed out, I want this article to be a featured article.ThurstAsh13 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I lost the will to do this. ThurstAsh13 (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section

This recent controversy really has no place in this article. This is one isolated case that has been brought by a student attorney general and student run honor court, which operates basically completely independent from the university administration.

But more importantly, this is a clear case of WP:Recentism:

"Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in:

• Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
• Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
• The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus."

This is an article about a large public university that is over 200 years old. It is inappropriate to have a controversy section in it that only contains information from a single, largely insignificant case of "he-said, she-said" that has only been covered by marginal media sources within the past few days. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to object to this information on the grounds that it's giving it undue weight. It is not acceptable or viable to object to it purely on the grounds that it's a student-run organization and therefore it's somehow not supposed to be included in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point. I was merely trying to explain why this case is not very notable as it relates to the university itself. Had university officials come out and said something like "we condone rape" or if the university administration had been involved in some kind of cover up of rape cases, then it probably would be a notable case worthy of inclusion in the article. As it is, this is a largely unnoteworthy case as it relates to the university as a whole, which is what this article is about. I'm sure over the 200+ years the university has been open, there have been literally hundreds of controversies far more notable than this one, so I can't see a reason why this 1 case would get its own section in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexual assault controversy

I just restored and slightly expanded a small section detailing the "sexual assault controversy" at this university. The events received significant attention both in media and policy circles, especially the ongoing ramifications and cascading policy changes at other colleges and universities that continue to follow the initial incidents at this one university. This is most evident from the recent inclusion of Andrea Pino, one of the students who filed the complaint at UNC, in The Chronicle of Higher Education's 2013 Influence List where she is listed as an "Anti-Rape Activist" who "spark[ed] a movement." Inclusion on that list isn't a Nobel Prize or anything but it definitely indicates that this topic is noteworthy enough to be included in appropriate encyclopedia articles. ElKevbo (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Undue. UNC has hundreds of years of history. This is WP:recentism. You could add this content to the History of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill article if you want, or create a new article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. This is having a profound national impact on hundreds of colleges and universities across the United States. It certainly doesn't deserve more than a few sentences in this article, however, so the section could probably stand to be edited and made more concise.

It's also unseemly of you to edit war about this issue. Your first removal was certainly ok; your second one - which reverted a completely different editor (me) who also added a significant new source - was not. Please consider following WP:BRD and self-reverting your most recent edit. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there is a "profound national impact". No change in laws or policies or anything. UNC has had plenty of scandals in the past. There's much special about this one that will make it notable enough for this article. Again, I encourage you to read WP:Recentism and Wikipedia:Advocacy. The status quo was the lack of inclusion of the content, meaning that the content should not be reinserted without consensus. Maybe a sentence or two about this topic in the History of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill article is appropriate.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FutureTrillionaire. This "controversy" is a clear case of WP:Recentism and does not belong in an overview article about a 200+ year old university. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Have either of you read the cited articles about the national impact this has had on the policies of the Department of Education and colleges and universities across the country? Or the article cited a few paragraphs above where a student central to this story has been labeled one of the most influential in U.S. higher education this year? The focus is not so much on the specific incident(s) at UNC but how the attention on UNC's actions and policies are resulting in massive change across the country.

I agree that this doesn't merit more than a mention in this article but it seems contrary to the available evidence that this is completely omitted given the scale and scope of its lasting impact. ElKevbo (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As further evidence, this news story from June and published in another reputable higher education news outlet opens with the statement:

If Andrea Pino hadn’t been drafted to help with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's search for the employee who would handle Title IX complaints, the national landscape of sexual assault activism might not look so dramatically different than it did just a year ago.

Combining this with the Chronicle coverage noted above, this provides crystal clear evidence that the nation's top higher education media outlets consider this incident to have had significant national impact. Why are Wikipedia editors discounting their opinions? The WP:UNDUE burden has been more than met. The material that was previously in the article may need to be edited or even refocused but to continue to omit it in the face of the multiple reliable sources outright stating that this has had widespread national impact goes against WP:N, one of our core policies. ElKevbo (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A topic that meets the notability criteria is allowed to have its own article. This does not mean that a topic needs to be presented in an article about a different topic. If you want, you can create your own article about the controversy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you advocating that all topics in this article that made a national impact should be removed from this article and placed in their own dedicated article without even a mention in this one? ElKevbo (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You are looking at this whole thing from a very short-term perspective, which is causing you to place far too much emphasis on this incident merely because it occurred recently. 50 years from now, do you really think this information will be deemed significant enough in the history of this centuries-old university to be included in this Wikipedia article? There are enough controversies that took place at this university during the Civil War era alone to write an entire book on, and just about all of them are probably more significant and notable than this incident, and yet they are not included in this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that a sentence or two would be appropriate for this incident that has led and is continuing to lead to significant policy changes at a national level. This is similar to what is currently in Lehigh University given its role in precipitating the Clery Act (although that material needs to be trimmed down a bit and moved into the history section). I don't understand why this is so different from the other things in this article that describe how this university has had a broad national impact. It just seems damn odd that multiple reliable sources have very specifically described in detail how this has had a national impact but Wikipedia editors are instead employing their own judgment to essentially say "nuh uh!"

(I am also a bit wary that some people could want to omit this information because it's negative but thankfully that doesn't seem to be happening, at least not overtly.) ElKevbo (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

(Here because of an alert at WikiProject Universities.) I think this is worth a brief mention. Maybe it could be in the Student Life section and maybe it could concentrate more on what actually happened within UNC Chapel Hill rather than the ramifications. But it is important news relevant to higher education in the USA and other countries too. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Rankings and Reputation

Along the same lines of the above section, I think the last paragraph in the section "Rankings and Reputation" should be taken out of this article. The last paragraph references an "academic scandal" that was found to involve only one professor who has since left the university and charged with felony fraud charges (http://www.chapelhillnews.com/2013/12/08/3429505/lawyer-nyangoro-will-fight-felony.html). There has been no other departments that have been found at fault and the director of the department has also retired.

Furthermore, the end of this paragraph is based on opinion or hearsay. The last reference in the paragraph (on the sentence, "Nevertheless, questions continue to be raised about just how endemic these problems are at North Carolina.") was even a reference to an opinion article in the NY Times.

Once again, I think this is falling under the category of WP:Recentism. I could understand and agree with the inclusion of this paragraph if the section was about how the UNC Afro-American studies department was regarded as one of the best in the country, but it is not even mentioned. The "Ranking and Reputation" section is meant to display the departments and majors that national and international publications have identified as exemplary, none of which have been brought up in links to any of the issues the paragraph references. Some of the rankings and awards mentioned were issued since the disclosure of this incident, and seemed to not have affected the publications' opinion of the university. I'm sure that other professors have been relieved of their teaching duties at the university because of their classes not being up to standard. None of those classes or professors have mentions in the article, nor should they. This case was brought to light primarily due to its ties (or possible ties) to UNC athletics.

Any other opinions or objections to this paragraph being removed? Tnbailey09 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Remove it, as it has no large significance about the University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.146.186 (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the IP to a point. While it is true that the graph probably needs rewriting to conform to WP:NPOV, this has been brewing for a couple of years and so does not fall under the umbrella of WP:Recentism. --Digitalican (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Weasel Wording

Having been beaten about myself by editors wikilawyering I think the IP deserves a better explanation of the reversion of weasel wording (meant as a descriptive appellation and not a snarky comment.) The findings of the Martin Commission were that there were structural deficiencies in the African-American studies program at UNC which would allow students to get a passing grade without attending classes. It wasn't that only some students were allowed to do this. All students (in that department) were allowed, but only some took advantage of the structural deficiency. Secondly, the Martin commission did not find suspicions, it found problems. (A finding of suspicions is classic weasel-wording.) Finally, I am going to revert the term irregularity back to fraud because that was the documented criminal charge (outside the Martin Commission report.) I understand the desire to mitigate the damage of this incident, I am a UNC grad myself, but it is a matter of record and needs to be included. --Digitalican (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Then I'll re-write to reflect the structural deficiencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.146.186 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Recentism/scandal talk

In comparison of other institutions with similar or just as egregious academic irregularities, I find little to no mention. This is because the academic irregularities are only but a thousandth of the history of the institution. Furthermore, the history has yet to be written in the books. I would love to discuss the scandals, but having them incorporated by journalists or bloggers with writing slants (see: Paul Barrett) does not seem appropriate.

See: FSU, Auburn, Minnesota, Cal Berkeley, Ohio State, University of Kansas, Duke, and so forth. None of them have articles related to their cheating and academic problems. I move to remove recentism. It can be added to a Recent history of the University. 64.129.146.186 (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

College athlete up-grading concerns

I noticed a couple of news stories (like this one) dealing with sports scholarship students supposedly getting inappropriately high grades at this university in particular. The university itself published a report it had received on similar issues in 2012, apparently in response to similar concerns raised the previous summer. The fact that the sources don't make a specific connection between what was apparently a recent (2014) incident and earlier incidents, and they seem to contradict each other (NewsBreaker claims UNC denies the claims of the whistleblower, but they also have a report indicating similar findings up on their website). The former governor (author of the report) claims the incidents his group found were isolated to the African-American Studies department, but the whistleblower apparently claimed this was university policy (although the one example was from an AFAM course).

I'm posting about this here because, under these circumstances, I'm really not comfortable adding this information to the article myself without further information/input from other users. I'm also not entirely sure this material (or other similar material) belongs in the article to begin with.

Has this been discussed here before? If not: thoughts?

126.0.96.220 (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed, the Julius Peppers article does mention an incident that came to light in August 2012. It's possible that when the above-mentioned report says "last summer" it meant "the summer of this year that just went by a few months ago" (where I come from "last summer", if written in December 2012, would more usually refer to the summer of 2011), in which case these incidents are the same. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The information for the Afro-American Studies pro forma courses is in the "Rankings and reputation" section. I'm not sure what 2014 incident you're referring to, though. Mary Willingham, the "whistleblower", brought her claims in 2013 and the controversy has continued into 2014. This is a continuation of the same academic scandal that dates back to at least 1996 and broke in the news in the summer of 2012. Lara 03:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Academic scandal, revisited

An anonymous IP address continues to remove the section on the academic controversy. This should really be hashed out on the talk page, not with constant anonymous deletions.

The pro-delete camp have raised 3 reasons in edit summaries: that the section was added by "by rival sports fans" (untrue, and irrelevant even if it was true), that the University of Southern California athletics scandal doesn't appear in USC's article (WP:OTHERSTUFF; perhaps that SHOULD appear there, but I'm not overly familiar with it. I will say from a glance the two appear somewhat different cases - the USC scandal was strictly related to sports, while UNC's scandal is an *academic* scandal, e.g. a slight majority of students weren't part of the sports program), and that this is "recentism."

The only argument that merits much discussion is recentism. It's true that it's hard to gauge the long-term impact, but this was major news that hit the national outlets. It's also been a slow-burning issue that's been relevant for years. I think it's fair to keep the whole section for now, check back again in 2-3 years, and then possibly cut this down to a sentence or two in the "History" section if it turns out to blow over quickly. Until then, though, it seems better to keep it in the article. SnowFire (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Level of Understanding

17:35, 19 December 2014‎ SnowFire(talk | contribs)‎ . . (108,084 bytes) (+46)‎ . .(rvt. wording on Wainstein report - the point is that a non-trivial number of people did "know" of the classes. For everything there's a "varying level of knowledge"; that isn't interesting, it implies maybe nobody was really informed.)

I disagree. To simply say that people "knew of the classes" is vague and implies a greater level of understanding of the nature of the classes among university employees mentioned than is indicated in Wainstein Report. Such a claim tells the reader (inaccurately) that all of the people/groups mentioned knew the full details (i.e., "knew of the classes"). Such a statement is clearly not supported by the evidence in the Wainstein Report. Most of the people cited did not know of the full nature of the courses, and in many cases, simply had suspcions about their structure, difficulty and/or validity. There were varying levels of knowledge among the people listed in the article. If we want to be more specific with those levels of knowledge, we need to also be more specific with the people who had those various levels of knowledge. I personnally don't think that level of detail is appropriate on the main UNC page. On the scandal page, probably. --HarveyAbout (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@HarveyAbout: I'd rather leave everything out entirely before saying "varying levels of understanding", a totally vacuous statement. There were varying levels of understanding of the position of Earth & the Sun in 1532 between Copernicus and the Church - great, so what does that mean? When haven't there been varying levels of understanding? And the concern is not whether "most of the people" had full knowledge; of course they didn't, it wouldn't have remained undisclosed for so many years if it had. The point is that according to the secondary sources, there were a number of notable people in other departments who knew "enough" that they should have raised the alarm. From the N&O:

[5] The report describes a fairly broad group of academic and athletic officials who knew about athletes getting better grades in classes that required only papers, yet took little or no action.

"It was common knowledge within the support program that the classes didn’t meet, were easy and offered high grades, the report says." (Doesn't say how broad the 'support program' is of course.)

“Besides those (academic support) counselors ... who were actively colluding with Crowder and Nyang’oro, there were a number of ...counselors and Athletics Department staff who knew that these were easy courses that required no class attendance and that they resulted in consistently high grades,” the report said. “Several also recognized the anomaly that these classes were taught in an independent study format even though they were often designated on the course schedule as lecture classes.” Academic and athletic officials had opportunities to stop the bogus classes, but took limited action.

So... as best I can tell, it is accurate to the secondary sources that "a number of faculty and administrators... knew of the classes". It is what is said in the article above. (Although, now that I look again, the phrasing is clunkier than I'd like, and I'd be happy to try and clean it up.) It is possible of course that the News & Observer is "wrong", but that's what citations are for, and I would be fine with citing it directly to them if you have a reliable secondary source contradicting them.

Also, belatedly, looking at some of your earlier edits... you removed "seeking to maintain NCAA-mandated minimum GPAs" saying "implies that athletes took the classes for only one reason--not consistent with reporting." Actually, according to The New York Times: Sometimes, the report said, counselors in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes explicitly told Mr. Nyang’oro and Ms. Crowder what grades students needed “to remain academically or athletically eligible.” Okay, the Times article mentions "academicaally eligible" too, but that was still implied but the previous phrasing - that part of the sentence was referring only to the atheletes, and the next part referred to everyone else. I'd like to restore this mention if you don't object? SnowFire (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for discussing the specifics here. I believe we can both work together to improve the current selection. It's clear that you've actually read the Wainstein Report, which is rare among most opining on the matter. Good points on the level of knowledge. Based on the report, it's obvious that very few people knew the full nature of the classes. Every university and Chapel Hill to this day still offer courses that are easier, and sometimes much easier, than others. It's not surprising that counselors would direct students and athletes to the easier courses, whether or not they knew what exactly was going on. Wainstein acknowledges this. However, like you say, some counselors and even Jan Boxill appear to have at the very least had full or close to full knowledge of what Crowder was doing. The problem was that there was no faculty oversight of the grading and that students were arbitrarily awarded high grades (A's and B's) regardless of the quality of work they submitted. And then the follow on problem was that the independent study classes were falsely labeled as lecture courses by the registrat. What do you think about something like this: A report released in October 2014 by former federal prosecutor Kenneth Wainstein showed that a number of faculty and administrators, including some members of the athletic support department, and the director of the Parr Center for Ethics had some knowledge of the courses' structure and grading.

I don't think it's necessary to mention attendance, or the lack thereof. That's the very definition of an independent study, which I'm sure still happens at Chapel Hill. The problem is that these classes were sometimes advertised as being lecture courses to mask what was happening. Perhaps that's worth mentioning: UNC offered independent study courses, which were sometimes listed as lecture courses, within the Department of African and Afro-American Studies that consistently awarded high grades regardless of the quality work submitted

I also reworded the 3100 student and 18 year sentence so that the "slightly fewer than half" refers to the students and not the years.

I'm okay adding the "seeking to maintain NCAA-mandated minimum GPAs" part back, if we first mention "to maintain academic good standing" (the primary reason). The whole athletics thing seems to have followed on unintentionally from Crowder's desire to help struggling student. Not sure about how exactly to fit this in though.

How does all that sound? --HarveyAbout (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Student murders

Shouldn't this article include a short entry regarding the recent murders? Three people having been murdered is pretty notable, despite the fact that the story didn't quite headline as much as, say, the Trayvon Martin case etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.64.22 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of the killings at this point would seem to fall under Wikipedia:Recentism. The deaths did not happen on campus. Only one of the dead was a UNC Chapel Hill student. The other two were N.C. State students. And while the case has garnered significant media attention, it is in line with other incidents that are not included in the article, such as the Murder of Eve Carson, the murder of Faith Hedgpeth, and Wendell Williamson's killings. If this warrants inclusion, why don't those other events? Ncjon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems like quite a lot of murders relating to just one campus! I would suggest a section be included to highlight them. Is this unusual, or are murders just not notable? --24.88.64.22 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally not notable, especially when none of them occurred on campus. Ncjon (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's not notable for an article about a university that is over 200 years old. Wikipedia:Recentism clearly applies. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Looking through this talk page, I notice that anything that has recently happened gets labelled with this 'Recentism' wiki guideline. Remember that it's just a guideline, not a law. It doesn't matter if the university is 200 years old, or 2,000 years old. The age of the university is irrelevant. What should be discussed is the number of students (and those connected with the university) have been involved in murders. Whether this one particular incident has recently happened or not, it should be discussed on merit with regard to other murders which have connection with the faculty. How many murders which have a connection with the university make them notable for inclusion in the article? --24.88.64.22 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for UNC in particular, but for a school that size, you would expect there to be a murder every few years. If this were a big event like the Virginia Tech massacre, then mentioning it makes sense. If it were a completely routine event that happens once ever few years (a student gets killed by a drunk driver) then it doesn't make sense. This is probably a more borderline case that could go either way, but I agree with its exclusion here. If there were to be some lasting impact on UNC (for example, if the school redesigns its campus to make sure that there are no secluded parking lots or something of that nature), then including it would make sense ... but as of now, this doesn't seem relevant enough to the history of the school to include. --B (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I accept your argument. In the articles for Northern Ireland, settlements (towns and villages) have murders relating to the Troubles are included if they amount to more than three or something, I think. A university isn't a settlement, as such, but it does have a population. I would be curious as to whether murder rate involving the average student population size is higher or lower than the average murder rate of the country.

I feel confident that the university itself has noted the deaths of its students, in some way. This is principally why I thought it might be an issue worth noting in the article. --24.88.64.22 (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Featured Article

Hey, I'd like to make this a featured article at some point. Does anyone have suggestions on how this article can be improved? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

On the removal of "one of the top-ranked schools" in first paragraph

This is the third time I've removed this phrase or a variation thereof. The main reason is that it is a fuzzy label. What exactly qualifies as a "top-ranked school"? Top 20 (which it isn't on almost all national rankings)? Top 50? Top school where? Worldwide? It seems to me that the rankings already provided under "Rankings and reputation" do a great job conveying exactly where this school is ranked. Readers can decide for themselves whether to give it the subjective label of a top-ranked school based on the numbers. Otherwise it is a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. (for those concerned about competition - don't worry, I made sure to eliminate this phrase from Duke's article as well. And I'll be keeping an eye on that one.)

Signed, 24.211.136.174 (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070316103454/http://www.ncaa.org:80/champadmin/ to http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207072226/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/news/orange/story/954167.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/news/orange/story/954167.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070804213527/http://www.uncg.edu:80/campus_links/inside_uncg/inside_history.html to http://www.uncg.edu/campus_links/inside_uncg/inside_history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

Although I'm not necessarily opposed to its inclusion, I've noticed that almost no other university page has this sort of section. I would argue that this page as a whole seems to have a disposition to highlight various shortcomings/criticisms of the university in as many places as possible, which I suspect has roots in NPOV, based on this page's edit history that I invite you to peruse (e.g., the prominent placement of the AA scandal, the editorializing in the Carolina Way section, and the Criticism section). This stuff should be consolidated, in my opinion, into a reformed "Criticism" section if there's going to be one, or there should be some sort of compromise, because I have serious misgivings about the quality of this page. Nulltech (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

No, the material actually needs to be integrated into the broader "History" section where it can have a broader context and be tied to other historical events and developments. It's POV to shove this material into its own special section at the bottom of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

KevBo, we can talk about going back to the way it was, but then what's the point of a "criticism section" if not to address criticism? You've absolutely degraded the page by putting them as literally the first pieces of information about the university, which I STRONGLY believe is NPOV. Nulltech (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, you've changed the page from the way it was before to prominently highlight criticism above such things as the founding of the university, which is insane. Nulltech (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The point is that "Criticism" sections are inherently POV. That's why most articles don't have them. And placing the material in the existing "History" section doesn't "highlight" it or place it "above such things as the founding of the university." It simply places the incidents in their historical context (well after the founding of the university so they're most certainly not "literally the first pieces of information about the university" so I don't understand that claim at all). ElKevbo (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

These sections are far from integrated into historical context, given that you've placed them as the only two stand-alone sections in the history section, and they are given preeminence over (I should have said figuratively, not literally) the rest of the university's history. My issue in my original edit is that I don't see a point of a "criticism" section if you're not going to put instances of criticism into it - and that doesn't explain why this page has an inherently NPOV section in it while every other university page that I've seen does not. If you want to actually integrate that stuff into the the history section, it's cumbersome but I suppose I understand it - it could conceivably be done with linking to the larger stand-alone page. I don't understand the weirdness of this page with the stand-alone scandal and criticism sections - it is extremely atypical for such pages. Nulltech (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I saw the notice of this discussion on the WikiProject Universities talk page. On other university pages, I would say this sort of content is almost always integrated into the history section, in their chronological position. Having its own section is almost certainly giving it undue weight.

I would also say that the full-length paragraphs describing the "criticism" are too long to be simply moved. The solution on other pages I've worked on has been to put the full description of the scandal/criticism/whatever on the stand-alone history page, which is (or should be) a much more extensive history where this length of text on a single subject is not undue, and to put a much shorter summary of the scandal in the history section on the main page.

There is also the danger of WP:RECENTISM. To help address this, I would lead the shortened paragraph with the reason why the scandal was historically significant for the school, e.g. "In 2015 UNC Chapel Hill was placed on probation for a year by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools' Commission on Colleges as a result of…", but that's a more stylistic point. Robminchin (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

For the two incidents that have their own articles I think that adding a few sentences in the history section of this article with links to the articles specifically about those incidents is fine. The third incident in the current POV "Criticism" section, sexual assault issues, does not currently have an article and I don't think it's notable enough to warrant an entire article. There are only four sentences describing the incident so it's already pretty short. ElKevbo (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, Robminchin, I believe the changes that you have suggested are excellent. Nulltech (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

UNC COVID-19 outbreak

Hello - over the past 24 hours, UNC Chapel Hill has made the decision to cancel all its in-person instruction for undergraduate students and move its classes online following a COVID-19 outbreak on campus. Over 130 positive cases have been confirmed within 2 weeks of the Chapel Hill reopening. This is a relevant link addressing this development: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/unc-chapel-hill-converts-remote-learning-after-reporting-135-new-n1236977 I wanted to seek advice if contributors here feel this might make for a pertinent addition to this page. Best wishes, HEwonk (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Does “toppling by a “crowd” adequately describe how Silent Sam was downed?

Who downed Silent Sam and how was he downed? Unc1999 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"Toppled" is how it is described by the majority of sources. Since Wikipedia simply summarizes what reliabe sources state, the description is appropriate: NBC, NPR, NYT, AP. S0091 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Outdated rankings

Forbes had a major change in their ranking methodology this year, and Carolina jumped from 47th to 28th. I think the rank on this page should be updated to reflect this significant change but for the life of me I cannot figure out how to update the reflist. The URL is https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2021/09/08/forbes-releases-2021-top-colleges-list-featuring-new-methodology-to-better-account-for-which-schools-are-serving-as-true-engines-of-the-american-dream/?sh=7da4f4f2518d.

Perry A. Hall

I recently created a draft article for professor Draft:Perry A. Hall. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)