Talk:North Carolina State University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / North Carolina (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina - North Carolina State University (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Atlantic Coast Conference articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former good article North Carolina State University was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for North Carolina State University:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
    • Add to lead. Needs one or two more paragraphs to summarize the article, per WP:LEAD.
    • The Student section needs references.
    • References need to be checked for consistency and accuracy.
    • Athletic Section needs more content, per WP:SS.
    • History section needs to better summarize the split article, per WP:SS.
    • Fair-use images need detailed fair-use rationale, per WP:FAIR.
    • Alumni section doesn't follow format set by previous featured articles, see Duke University and look at its format and University of Michigan.
    • Address issues from Good Article Reassessment.

    GA delisting[edit]

    Unfortunately, I am delisting this article from the good articles list. Please see below for my comments. I'm disheartened that the article hasn't improved and the only activity is vandalism. I encourage you to improve and resubmit the article as I'm sure it can be "good again" with a little effort. Thanks. HolomorphicHamster (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    GA reassessment – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

    1. Is it reasonably well written?
      A. Prose quality:
      The lead does not adequately summarize the article. Try expanding it some. See WP:LEAD for more information. Also suggest copyediting the whole article and peer review.
      B. MoS compliance:
      See semi-automated peer review below.
    2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
      A. References to sources:
      B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
      C. No original research:
    3. Is it broad in its coverage?
      A. Major aspects:
      The "athletics" section could be expanded. See WP:SS for advice on summarizing the "NC State Wolfpack" page.
      B. Focused:
      The long list of Greek organizations seems out of place. Other good school articles don't tend to list every fraternity or sorority. Is North Carolina State University especially notable for these? Also is dodgeball more significant than other elements of student-life at the university?
    4. Is it neutral?
      Fair representation without bias:
      Be careful to justify phrases such as "The university is well known for its award-winning, celebratory Homecoming traditions".
    5. Is it stable?
      No edit wars, etc:
      Much vandalism, maybe seek semi-protection if it continues.
    6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
      A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
      B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
      Do the "NC State Wolfpack" and "Technician" logos meet the significance criterion of WP:FAIR?: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
    7. Overall:
      Pass or Fail:
      I'm sure this could be a good article again. Please improve and resubmit it and I or another editor would be more than happy to review it.

    HolomorphicHamster (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-automatic peer review

    The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

    You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

    HolomorphicHamster (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    "North Carolina State University at Raleigh"[edit]

    I don't doubt the correctness of the name, but I've never heard it used, so it would be useful if someone could explain the usage and add a reference. Hippo (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    "North Carolina State University at Raleigh" is the official name as set by NC General Statute. This was a compromise during the time after NC State was officially called "North Carolina State of the University of North Carolina at Raleigh" (no joke). Convention drops the "at raleigh" part of the name.

    NC State as Named in NC GS

    History of NC State

    --Thunder (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Interesting... The NCGA do the strangest things at times... Hippo (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    I think the info box is too much. It is to be a high level view of the university, but having every name that NC State has had is too much. Can we cut that back?--Thunder (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Of course, though I'm not sure if we can just pick one of the former names as before. Since I think they're all in the article, I propose we remove the field. Hippo (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    I agree, the "at Raleigh" should be in the opening of the article but we should not otherwise muddy the water.--Thunder (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    The university does not even recognize "at Raleigh" as part of the university name. It is in the statute but the univeristy refuses to recognize it. It should be removed from this article in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    I think the article very clearly states that the "at Raleigh" is only in the statutory name and not commonly used. This is also generally consistent with other entities whose legal names differ from the names they refer to themselves by. —C.Fred (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    Agree. Fletch81 (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    For example, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill rarely uses the "at Chapel Hill" designation, but take a glance at their official website and you'll see it on the front page. NC State on the other hand dismisses "at Raliegh" completely, and it cannot be found anywhere on the official web page. The official website first refers to the univeristy as North Carolina State University and from there on out as NC State Univeristy. Also, the university seal and diplomas do not even use "at Raleigh." The statutory name is used by no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    But it is the statutory name. Saying it is used by no one is not a statement of fact. The statutory name is properly referenced and should not be ignored. Fletch81 (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    Also, the University does acknowledge that it is the legal name.[1] They are far from the only entity that brands itself with something other than its full legal name. That does not change the fact that the full, formal name includes "at Raleigh," and Wikipedia convention is to use the full formal name in the intro, regardless of what the pagename may be. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    North Carolina State University name guidelines

    • North Carolina State University at Raleigh* is the full, official name of our institution and may be written when explicitly required on official documents. Editors should otherwise avoid using this name because of the implication that another branch of North Carolina State University exists in another city.Italic text
    • North Carolina State University* is the preferred form of the university’s full name. It should be paired with the university’s identifier on the front or back covers of publications and on World Wide Web (WWW) pages. This form should be used on title pages, in addresses and on first reference in text.
    • NC State* is the preferred second reference, mainly used as nouns (i.e., “Welcome to NC State”). Because “university” is missing from this short form, be cautious using it as an adjective; i.e., “NC State Department of…” may be confused with a State of NC department.

    The “university” is also a preferred third reference.

    Note: Editors should exercise caution to avoid confusion with units of North Carolina State Government or units at other universities, and the creation of incorrect names, (i.e., NC State Libraries).

    •* (lowercase) is the university’s domain address in electronic mail and Web addressing. Although this is the URL for the university, “NCSU” should not be used to refer to the university in any form of communication. NCSU Libraries is the only exception.

    D'oh (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC) - just trying for clarity, not insult.

    Which means the introduction should include the "at Raleigh" part, because the introduction includes the full, official name of the subject. (Consider the Bill Clinton article, which begins "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946)…") Because it's uncommon, that's not the title of the article, though; the common/preferred full name of "North Carolina State University" is used instead.
    Further, those are guidelines that aren't necessarily used consistently within the university; I have received email from the "NCSU Jenkins MAC Program" (granted, that was in the From: field, where space is at a premium). And at any rate, they're guidelines. Wikipedia generally honors stylistic requests, but when our MOS says use the full, official name, that trumps the University's preferences. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    Associate's Degree[edit]

    Shouldn't there be inclusion of the Associate's degree programs offered at NCSU? I've only found a few on the NCSU homepage, though it seems there's a long tradition of offering these degrees at NCSU. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with the subject could take charge? Fletch81 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

    NC State offers a few associate degrees programs through its Ag school. I can't see why this small program (less than 400) students should be high lighted in a encyclopedia article. There are many other, larger more notable programs that don't have their own section.--Thunder (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not advocating its own section, but it should be included in the summary of academics. The number of Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral programs are all at least mentioned. This seems to be a logical inclusion. Fletch81 (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

    Removal of John Edwards photo[edit]

    Jun 12, 2008 Thunder8 added an image of John Edwards to the people section of the NC State article. I have attempted to remove this image, along with others. My objection to the image is that John Edwards does not meet the criteria for significance as suggested in the article. The article as written on Sept 1, 2008 says “A number of NC State alumni and faculty have made significant contributions in the fields of government, military, science, academia, business, arts, and athletics, among others.” The next sentence reads “John Edwards, former senator and two time presidential candidate, and James B. Hunt Jr., 4-term Governor of North Carolina, are among the most notable alumni with involvement in politics.” John Edwards 6 year term as a U.S. Senator and failed presidential runs along with his failed bid for the vice presidency on the Democratic ticket with John Kerry certainly gained him notoriety. However, as events occur to elevate an individual in terms of their notability (and importantly with regard to their “contributions”), events may also contribute to lessoning and even reversing that notability. At this point in time John Edwards’s notability is certain, but not as a politician. I would argue that John Edwards is a pop culture figure (i.e. scandalized national politician). Any claim to significance was largely dependent on his ability to gain national office (elected or appointed), a task at which he has consistently failed. Governor James Hunt is a much more “significant” political figure having reshaped the office of governor in the state of North Carolina. I would argue for his picture to appear on this page. The publication of John Edwards’s picture is simply a nod to a popular obsession with scandal. This article was created in August of 2002; the content I am objecting to was just 70 odd days prior to my first edit. jk1lee (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    Edwards is not a "pop culture figure." Failed bid or not, he is extremely notable as a politician and the recent scandal does not lessen or reverse his notoriety. Your attempt to remove his photo seems to be in vanity. The date the image was added is irrelevant, as the image was added in good faith and wiki is a constantly evolving document. I think this is a clear case of WP:COI. The image should remain. Fletch81 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that Edwards is a very well-known figure and I am suspicious that editors may attempt to remove his photo from this article only because of his recent scandal. However, I don't understand or agree with some of Fletch81's accusations against Jk1lee and I urge editors here to discuss this issue calmly without tossing about unproven or personal accusations. --ElKevbo (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    I suppose my suspicions arise from jk1lee's user page that says he is an educator from Raleigh, the home of NC State. These aren't personal accusations. He admitted to removing the picture because of the scandal. That's a clear cut vanity issue. Fletch81 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    Funny the things that are important enough for the discussion page. I wrote that alumni section BEFORE the scandal broke. I personally feel that he is a significant national political figure.--Thunder (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    The picture should stay, as the text of the article makes no mention of the scandal (not SHOULD it). Edwards was a serious candidate for both President (twice) and Vice President (once) and a senator. Between him and Governor Hunt, they are truly the two most important political figures to graduate from the school. The rationale behind removing the picture is "He had a scandal, so we shouldn't include the pic in the article" is rediculous. He's a nationally prominent politician, his pic should be included. Oh, and like the OP, I am an educator who lives in Raleigh, and I have no connection to the school myself. Keep in mind that there are over 100 schools in the Wake County Public School System, as well as numerous private schools, 4 other major colleges (St. Augs, Shaw, Peace, Meredith), a few techinical colleges (including Wake Tech), it would be a HUGE leap to accuse someone of a conflict of interest in editing an article about NCSU, merely on the claim that they are an educator, and live in the same metro area! 18:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    Second discussion[edit]

    I have again attempted to remove the image of John Edwards from the article. I agree that he is a notable political figure and arguably the best know graduate of NC State. My concern is that the infamy now associated with Edwards cast enough of a shadow on his legacy that we should reconsider his recognition as notable. Their are many politicians who have risen to positions of power and note higher than Edwards, who are not mentioned on the article for the school where the matriculated as an undergraduate. There is no picture of the current Vice President Joe Biden on the article for his college, University of Delaware. Perhaps a better comparison, Spiro Agency (certainly disgraced) does not appear on the article for Johns Hopkins. Also, note that current NC senator Richard Burr does not appear in the Wake Forest University article.

    Notoriety is not a justification for inclusion on the NC State article. Accomplishment and legacy are, and both of these are in serious questions for Edwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk1lee (talkcontribs) 00:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry but I disagree. If other articles are lacking images they should have then please add them. But to argue that Edwards is not notable is silly. He is indeed notorious to some degree but still very, very notable. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    OK, so we disagree over the connotations of notable or notorious. I am making an argument about the criteria for inclusion. If we cannot use comparisons and you refuse to agree on the meaning of words such as notable, then what criteria shall we use? I also proposed we use the notions of accomplishment and legacy. John Edwards is relatively accomplished (North Carolina has had over 50 US senators), but if being a senator (i.e accomplished) is a reasonable criteria for inclusion, then why do we not see other senators listed constantly on other article about college and universities? What shall be the criteria?

    I will continue to delete the image until someone makes an argument that is better than saying this deletion is "silly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk1lee (talkcontribs) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    I agree with Fletch81's argument above: "Failed bid or not, he is extremely notable as a politician and the recent scandal does not lessen or reverse his notoriety." His tenure in the Senate and candidacy for vice president are good reasons for his inclusion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    Then you're edit warring. I've already reverted you once and I hope that someone else will do so again. I'm sorry that we disagree but "I'm going to do what I want to do anyway" in the face of a clear consensus is unacceptable behavior. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    Of course the recent scandal lessens Edwards's (positive) notoriety. Positive political notoriety is not achieved as a result of office holding or the act of running for office. It is a legacy of achievement that is earned through positive action. Negative actions (defined as doing harm) have important consequences with regard to legacy. Edwards has done considerable harm to his legacy and his family, his supporters and, in fact, the democratic process. By perpetrating a lie that had the potential to create political unrest in this country if he had been elected, Edwards put his own interests in front of that of his country. This is a cardinal sin for a politician. Edwards's disregard for, among other things, the common good of his political party and the country is no longer in question. John Edwards might be notable for his egocentric behavior, but not his positive notoriety. A good argument could be made that he is currently the best counter example that we could find for a (positively) notable NC State alumnus. (jk1lee (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

    You are under some mistaken impression that his notoriety must be positive. There is no consensus here. In fact, you have several editors who all disagree with your opinion. Please stop reverting this article by deleting Edwards' picture, which you have done several times. Discuss it here, or seek other opinions through the proper channels on Wikipedia. Fletch81 (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    infobox logo removal/inclusion[edit]

    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) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

    Agricultural associates degrees in lead[edit]

    I disagree with the removal of the 2-year agricultural degrees from the lead of this article. An unregistered editor [ removed] the content without an edit summary or discussion and C.Fred reverted my undo with an edit summary of "while interesting, focus on the major degrees (bachelor/master/doctor level); the associate degrees are covered in the text of the article." I disagree with the elitism implied by elevating the 4+ year degrees to level where they are worthy of being mentioned in the lead but the lowly 2-year degrees are not. More importantly, I think it's worth mentioning these degrees in the lead given the history of this institution and its status as a land-grant institution. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Then the questions needs to be asked whether those are the only associate degrees offered by State. I don't see why only ag degrees should be listed and not others. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other program that would do associate degrees (though forestry would be the first program I'd check). To me, the lead she give overview information at the topmost level, and I'm not sure nine associate degrees are worth mentioning. —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    It looks like the Ag degrees are the only Associates degrees offered: It's not terribly common for a 4-year institution to award 2-year degrees and these are closely related to the institution's historical mission so it seems interesting enough to mention in the lead. I'm pretty wary of us snubbing them because they're "just" 2-year degrees. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    "The institution's historical mission": now that's a good case for including it in the intro! I'm on board. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    R. K. Pachauri Photo Caption[edit]

    The photo caption on R. K. Pachauri's photos puts him as Nobel Prize Winner. The 1997 Nobel Peace Prize was given to Al Gore and IPCC. Pachauri received the prize on behalf of IPCC as its chairman. S|O|Y (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

    Flagship status[edit]

    I believe there is enough evidence from internal memos and publications from NCSU and other news outlets that we can add the Flagship designation status to the page. Just last year the Daily Tar Heel ( reported that both UNC and NCSU share the Flagship status within the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:32, March 31, 2012‎

    Sorry but a single article from a student newspaper doesn't cut it. We mustered some pretty convincing sources for the UNC-CH article; can you provide sources of similar quality and quantity for NCSU? ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    Here is an internal memo from NCSU on their position as the STEM flagship of the system,, which I think you will agree is justified given that smaller state schools in the system have pre-engineering programs which students complete at NCSU, much in the same way many pre-med or pre-law students at smaller schools can complete their degrees at UNC. Also, in relation to the UNC-CH article's debate over the term, I don't think U.S. News & World Report is a credible source in academic discourse, they are mostly respected by the parents of high school seniors. If the System designated either one in an internal memo I would concede to it, yet it hasn't and both claim this term and I think both have the programs to justify their claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    So far you've provided (a) a student newspaper article and (b) an NCSU-authored document. Do you have any other evidence? Those are insufficient to support your claim that NCSU is widely considered by others to be a flagship university. ElKevbo (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

    The first is self-authored so it's not a terribly strong piece of evidence. The third is also probably taken from an NCSU-authored description but it's not completely clear where it came from. The second link is somewhat useful as it does appear to be independent of the subject. ElKevbo (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)