Talk:University of North Dakota

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article University of North Dakota has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
WikiProject North Dakota This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Dakota,
a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to North Dakota.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top-importance within North Dakota articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Expansion/photos

I'd like to help out with the article. What sort of angles would you like to pursue?
Also, I would suggest against using UND's PR images in the article and try to take some pictures that can be fully released under the GPL. I realize my picture of the Chester Fritz is a bit washed out, but it is public domain. I have several more photos of the campus that we could put up (including one of the "eternal flame" display out by Twamley), I'll post them up on the talk page here and see what to do with them. --Alexwcovington (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Here are the photos. I uploaded them to the Wikimedia Commons, it's actually surprisingly easy to use them, as you can see from the syntax here. Nevermind the table.  :P --Alexwcovington (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Blowing snow
Blowing snow
Centennial Drive
Centennial Drive
Chester Fritz Library
Chester Fritz Library
Clifford Hall
Clifford Hall
Depression monument
Depression monument
Eternal flame
Eternal flame
Memorial Union
Memorial Union
Twamley Hall and field
Twamley Hall and field
Twamley Hall
Twamley Hall
Walsh Quad in winter
Walsh Quad in winter

If you think it is better to not use the UND PR pics that's ok. Your pictures of the Library and Twamley are the best of the collection in my opinion. I'll put them in the article and we can see how that works. Also, maybe sometime I'll take a couple pictures around campus and see if I get anything good. --MatthewUND 18:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah...as far as additions to the UND article. I was thinking about adding a "Research" section...that way we would have the "big three" covered: academics, athletics, and research. I made an article for the Red River Valley Research Corridor and we could link to that article from a new "Research" section. Other ideas of mine include a list somewhere in the UND article of notable alumni and a new article for the Dakota Student. --MatthewUND 18:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I created a Dakota Student article today. --MatthewUND 09:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Cool. --Alexwcovington (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notable alumni

I am new to Wikipedia but thought someone might want to clear up two things in the Notable Alumni section: the link to Thomas McGrath appears to be the wrong link and also Kimberly Krueger may be moderately notable but is not an alumna (she has not graduated). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.217.142 (talk • contribs)

Hey there, welcome to Wikipedia! You're right on both counts: the link to McGrath was wrong and Kruger really doesn't belong in this list. I'll fix both issues. Again, welcome! --MatthewUND(talk) 06:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm also new. I just wondered if I'm the only one that finds the Dru entry under notable Alumni in poor taste? As I recall Dru didn't graduate from UND, but more importantly it seems odd to put "victim of rape and murder" as a distinguishing characteristic that makes an alumna notable... no? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.183.177.191 (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for your comment. Contrary to popular belief, "alumnus" does not signify graduation from a particular school. From the "alumnus" article:
An alumnus (pl. alumni) according to the American Heritage Dictionary is "a male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university." [1] In addition, an alumna (pl. alumnae) is "a woman graduate or former student of a school, college, or university."
So, even if Dru did not graduate from UND, she can still be considered an alumnus. I agree that we could stand to reword the entry a bit though. I'll do it right now. --MatthewUND(talk) 04:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This is true, but it seemed to be a deterring fact when mentioned in relation to Kimberly Krueger. My larger point is that if being victim of a sexual or violent crime--or in Dru's case both--qualifies you as a notable alumni/a, you'll find that your "Notable Alumni" section will need to be expanded. If absolutely necessary, perhaps something more along the lines of "eponymous victim that helped instigate 'Dru's Law' legislation" or something similar would be better. You need to be more specific about what it is that makes Dru notable; specifically, that the crime perpetrated against her and the ensuing media coverage were such that it became a crucial case in instituting new legislation seems the more appropriate focus. Focusing on what made Dru's situation particularly unique seems far more pertinent than on Dru qua victim-of-violent-crime. Is it common to put notable victims on "Notable Alumni" pages? I guess perhaps I'm merely balking due to unfamiliarity with the format.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.183.177.191 (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
I think the new wording is a good improvement on the entry. Thanks to whoever took care of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.177.191 (talk • contribs)
No problem! --MatthewUND(talk) 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Largest Employer?

I am not sure about this largest employer statement. The quote made by the president does not seem accurate based on the approx. 2800 people when adding together the faculty and staff (are there other unknown employees?).

According to http://www.acinet.org/acinet/oview6.asp?soccode=&stfips=38&from=State&id=&nodeid=12 UND is #7 which looks to be more accurate based on the faculty/staff numbers.

Let me know what you think.

--Ndstate 04:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the acinet.org list makes it look like NDSU employs many more people than UND. However, I can't place too much confidence in that list or the figures. The list doesn't appear to be from any official agency and it includes some odd entries. Why does it list Altru, MedCenter One, and MeritCare twice each? That doesn't make sense. In all honesty, how can NDSU (slightly smaller than UND) have 2000 more employees? The stats just don't add up.
I found this list (pdf file) from ND Job Service and it actually lists UND as the largest employer in the state (it appears that it isn't including the Air Force). I personally place much more trust in the ND Job Service list. I've added the ND Job Service list as a second citation for that employment statement in the UND article.
I'm thinking that the NDSU employment figures you found on the NDSU website are a little inflated. Perhaps they do employ 5222 people overall, but that is including 2174 temporary employees and 639 graduate assistants...I'm not sure that those should really be included in NDSU's employment stats. I'm thinking the stats we have found for NDSU are very liberal and the stats for UND are either conservative or in line with actuality. I wish we could find definitive employment stats for both UND and NDSU that uses the same criteria. For now, we'll probably have to try to figure out decent numbers for both universities, but at the same time realize that, overall, UND appears to employ more people than NDSU and is at least the second largest employer in the state. These stats can be confusing, huh!? --MatthewUND(talk) 07:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
After some looking around, I think the NDSU figures we have found are for full-time and part-time employees...in other words, anyone who in any capacity works for NDSU. On the other hand, the UND stats appear to be for only full-time employees. What we have to decide is if we should post just full-time employment for both institutions or if we should report full-time and part-time for both. --MatthewUND(talk) 07:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, just so you know I was not implying that you were making something up. I was just basing my post on the numbers I had seen. I am not trying to make this a competition between UND and NDSU ;)
Anyway, the reason I thought NDSU's numbers could be so high is because of the extension centers etc. Additionally I have no problem counting part time people, because they are in fact faculty and staff etc, and the agricultural aspects of NDSU relate to their employment styles: temp/partime.
Let me know what you think --Ndstate 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I really wish we could find employment numbers for both NDSU and UND that use the same formula to arrive at their totals. I agree with you that the NDSU numbers (which include part-time and temporary people...any person employed in any capacity) are probably the best numbers to go with. Still, I wish we could find similar statistics for UND. I know I've heard these numbers for UND before, but I can't seem to find anything now other than the numbers that exclude part-time and temporary positions. You would think that the universities would be required to post numbers like these on their websites. The current numbers that UND has on their website are unrealistically small. While I agree that it remains ambiguous just how many people NDSU and UND each employ, I really think it is safe to say that UND overall employs more people (based on the sources I provided). --MatthewUND(talk) 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that you can't really justify the statement that UND is the 2nd largest employer in the state. You say that you "trust" Job Service's numbers, yet by your own admission they don't back up your claim that UND is the second largest employer in the state. If you really trusted those numbers you'd list UND as #1. You need to back up the statement that UND is the 2nd largest employer in the state or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GothmogLOB (talk • contribs)
Agreed --134.129.67.153 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Andrews

The Mark Andrews article says that he did graduate from UND in 1949, but another user says he went to NDSU. Can anybody help out here? --MatthewUND(talk) 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This site says NDSU: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000208 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GothmogLOB (talk • contribs) 01:34, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

NDSU's Alumni Association lists Mark Andrews as having graduated in 1949 with a degree in "Ag, Food Systems & Natural Resources". I'd say he's an NDSU grad who also attended UND. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GothmogLOB (talk • contribs) 01:46, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Images and seal

I have removed the recently added images. These images were taken directly from the UND website. That kind or practice is frowned upon on Wikipedia. Images designated as "for non-commerical use" should not be used on Wikipedia. Believe me...I tried to use some of the same pictures a couple of years ago before I had a better understanding of copyrights. They were removed and quickly deleted. Even though the old pictures may not be as nice as the ones from the UND site, at least they are free to be used on here.

As for removing the seal at the request of the registrar, I'm not sure what I think about that. I'm not sure if the registrar is really able to say that the seal can't be used on Wikipedia...does the registar own the seal? The template message at Image:UNDseal.png states that: It is believed that the use of images of seals 1)to illustrate the government or agency in question and 2)on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

According to Wikipedia:Logos:

It is not necessary to seek formal permission from the owner in advance of using their logo, so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with or endorses Wikipedia or the article it appears in, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner. The purpose of the specific guidelines above is to meet these conditions.
In the event that the owner objects to the use made of a logo, the suggested action is for the owner to remove the logo themselves, and identify themselves and their reasons for removing it on the associated talk page.

I think we need to hear directly from somebody at UND who can state why the University wishes to remove the seal from this article when fair use seems to state that such a seal can be used. --MatthewUND(talk) 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enrollment

Just to let you know the UND enrollment numbers have been contested as not being accurate. It has been said that double counting has been done. I think we should leave this contention note in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.88.142 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The material you added has been removed. The current UND enrollment numbers are clearly cited and have been widely reported...on the other hand, you provided no sources for the study you cite. This is the first I've ever heard of such a study and, to me, this sounds a bit like sour grapes on DSU's part. Regardless, an ongoing study that hasn't received media coverage isn't worthy of mention here...certainly not in the first paragraph. --MatthewUND(talk) 06:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA comments

With a quick glance, the UND logo at the bottom of the infobox (Image:UNDlogo.JPG) needs a fair use rationale and two other images (Image:Unodak twamley close.jpg & Image:Unodak aero clifford hall.jpg) in the article have depreciated licenses that need to be changed. Please address these before the reviewing editor reviews the article. --Nehrams2020 00:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed these issues. --MatthewUND(talk) 01:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA: passes

The section above this about about GA, but it wasn't on hold at WP:GAN, so I guess I'm free to review it. It passes!

  • Well written? Generally, yes. There were a few choppy sentences and series of sentences -- you'll want to work on them if you're going to FA, but for GA, it's okay. Here are a few things to work on:
    • UND’s economic impact on the state and region is more than $1 billion a year -- kind of vague. What does "impact" mean specifically?
    • A large amount of housing -- I don't really like the word "amount" there, as housing is not typically something that can be quantified.
    • The 1980s and 1990s were another period of growth for UND. -- kind of vague. What kind of growth -- enrollment, faculty, endowment, campus, prestige? All?
  • Factually accurate and verifiable? Good use of <ref> and {{cite}} templates, well-cited, reliable sources, etc. I noticed a handful of statements that didn't have citations, but none of them were contentious or dubious. Plus, I know that if a number of sentences are covered by a single citation, it gets in the way to slap the tag at the end of every single one. FA will probably want them all explicitly marked, but again, this is fine.
  • Broad in coverage? Seems fine. I can tell you've fit this into the format at WikiProject Universities -- nicely done. Sections are given appropriate length/weight.
  • Neutral? Yes.
  • Stable? Appears fine.
  • Illustrated? All free images except the two logos, which have acceptable rationales (although, you might want to look into Image:Plains of Sweet Regret.jpg, which is up for deletion on the Commons).

Good job! Dylan 01:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • One more suggestion. I understand this just fine, but it might want to be given more context: UND's athletic teams bear the name of the Fighting Sioux, which is not without some controversy. I'd like to see it explain (1) That the Sioux are an American Indian tribe from North Dakota and its environs, and (2) why there is controversy (e.g. explicitly state that the idea of using an ethnic group as a mascot is considered by some to be offensive). Dylan 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I glanced at the article with an eye towards evaluating it for GA status (but decided not to as I am inexperienced with GA criteria) and that statement jumped out as one definitely needing further explanation. The NCAA has been harping on this for years and as other institutions have responded, those institutions that have not changed their mascots have been under more and more pressure to do so. --ElKevbo 16:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campus Dakota

Campus Dakota (previously know as Dakota Roar) is a discussion forum and such websites should generally not be linked to on Wikipedia. The owner of Campus Dakota (a current UND grad student) routinely linkspams his discussion forum on local blogs. Campus Dakota is not that well known on campus and thus including a link to it on the UND article is little more than free advertising. --MatthewUND(talk) 22:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Campus Dakota is not only a discussion forum, and is not owned by a single person but by a group of students from a number of schools in the state of North Dakota (currently UND, NDSU and VCSU). The purpose of the site is explained here. The site publishes student work and freely offers web and forum space to student organizations on all ND and SD campuses. How well-known (in the eyes of MatthewUND, who is not a current student) should a website be on campus for it to qualify as a viable media outlet? --208.107.16.188 (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fighting Sioux

Why doesn't it mention the Fighting Sioux controversy that has gotten major media coverage. And the fact that the American Indian groups on campus voted against it. And the NAACP and AIM groups involvement in abolishing it? Whether you agree with it or not, the Fighting Sioux controversy is what comes to most everyone's minds when they hear about UND. Puckeylut (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)