Jump to content

Talk:University of Houston/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Cleanup

I've just finished an article cleanup of University of Houston. As The University of Texas is nearing featured status I did some modeling after said article.

Following is a breakdown of changes with biggest edits listed first:

Thoughts/feedback? jareha 10:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Camparitive Claims

I have placed {fact} next to some of the claims on this page that need to be cited to remain in the article. Can someone track down some objective cites that allow these claims to stay? Otherwise we need to delete them. Dothivalla 17:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have tracked down one site that would back up all of the {{fact}} template you put next to [1]. In this website, you will find that UH is the most diverse research institution in the United States and among many other things. UH is not the most diverse university, but it is the most diverse research university. Did you even catch that while you were reading it or were you too busy placing {{fact}} all over the article next to things you think did not seem right, in your opinion. Why don't you do your own research next time you put {{fact}} all over the article (be it this article or any other articles). Learn to have good faith in articles and their editors! How would you like it if I go to the University of Texas at Austin's article and place {{fact}} all over facts that I don't like or agree with? In summary, you do not get to delete the sentences you put {{fact}} next to! --68.93.70.9 21:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I also see that you have been giving people hard times over Texas Tech and Texas A&M universities' talk pages by questioning their facts and whatnot. What is your problem anyway? Whatever it is, get over it! All the claims on the Texas Tech University article can be found on their website. Why don't you quit sticking your nose and questioning other school articles and get busy with removing POV from the UT article! --68.93.70.9 21:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have to argue with you on this one. Wiki policy is extremely clear. If you can't back up a comparitive claim it's toast. If you have issues with the UT or TAMU pages please edit them. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Dothivalla 22:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The only only non-subjective citation I could find from your three links related to the diversity claim. Unfortunately UCLA [2], Cal State Dominguez Hills [3], and UC Riverside [4] make similar claims about themselves. Provide a non-UH source for your claims and we can start talking. Dothivalla 09:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"Rutgers, Newark has been designated the most ethnically diverse research university in the nation for seven consecutive years."[5] and most importantly from US News [6]. I am changing and citing the claim.
US News has Rutgers, not UH listed as the most diverse school. This is why we require citations. Dothivalla 09:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I traced the Wellness Center claim to the source. In 2004 it was recognized as one of 7 outstanding new indoor sports centers by NIRSA. Not entirely sure that makes the cut for a wikipedia article though. [7] Dothivalla 09:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The only outside article I could find referencing the SERCC was a somewhat warning article talking about the particular challenges facing world class architects and scintific labs [8]. The article can be implied to support the idea of Pelli as world renowned, but nothing exists to support "most advanced in the southwest." Dothivalla 10:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Academic Boosterism

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism This article clearly violates the provisions in the article with lines like:

  1. "...and is one of Texas's premier research and teaching institutions..."
  2. "...become a major institution of higher education..."
  3. "The University of Houston's innovative curriculum, nationally ranked programs, and dynamic learning and mentoring environment..."
  4. "Amongst the most prestigious of the University of Houston's colleges..."
  5. "UH world-class facilities include..."

Unless anyone objects I am going to o through and clear out some of the more egregious examples of boosterism on the page. Dothivalla 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No objections here. Wikipedia articles shouldn't read like advertisement brochures. jareha 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Object! There are "boosterism" (as you would call it) all over Texas A&M University and the University of Texas at Austin's article as well. Some of what you quoted up there are facts that can be found if you search the net for them. I will rewrite some of the sentences to make it more "neutral" and less "boosterism" in the future when time permits. --68.93.70.9 21:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been working to clear out the clearly false claims from both the TAMU and Tech pages (as you noted above). I am only doing the same here. If you see clearly false or ambiguous claims on the UT page, please feel free to clean them out. Dothivalla 22:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe you mean The University of Texas at Austin and not "Tech". jareha 23:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
As for the UT-Austin article, 68.93.70.9, many contributors have worked very hard to either remove or reference statements which could otherwise be considered academic boosterism. If you find something that we've missed, please discuss such on the article's talk page. jareha 23:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This is for RJN. You obviously didn't read the Boosterism Link. It Says clearly "Avoid vague terms of praise. Prestige and reputation, excellence and exclusivity are often used imprecisely, in order to create an impression of an institution's high quality which cannot be verified or falsified." The you reinserted several vague unverified terms of praise including
  1. ...UH, is a nationally recognized...
  2. ...Texas's premier research and teaching institutions...
  3. ...modern campus...
Look, if you can cite and defend these claims then do so. But simply reverting them will result in a quick revert back.Dothivalla 07:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You have reverted multiple edits that I have made without even looking what I did. You can find those statements at [9], [10], and [11]. At those three websites, you can find everything, including the items you marked {{fact}}. Everything is in there so I don't know why you are so adament about removing and placing {{fact}}. Now stop reverting—I already gave you three links to a website to back it up. The University of Houston is the flagship institution of the UH System—this is a fact so do not remove it—it is not academic boosterism. Anything else? Discuss it and stop removing things. RJN 08:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"Modern campus" is not on there anymore. Look closely! I even added a reference to the Handbook of Texas, but you reverted that as well. You also reverted another editor as well. You are acting like you own all these college articles and they have to be written by your standards—you do not own these articles. Stop acting like you own them and guarding it from edits by other editors. RJN 08:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
All of the references are from UH. This does nothing to change their subjective nature. At the end of the day the terms "Nationally recognized" and "premiere" mean nothing if it comes from UH describing itself. If you want to keep these claims please cite them from somehwere that is not UH and offers some sort of verifiable methodology. Quote the US News overall ranking, or Princeton review one and offer the footnote in the article. Simple reverting and pointing me to the UH page is not particularly convincing. Dothivalla 08:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I submitted this page for mediation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal Lets stop this from turning into an edit war

You keep on removing the Handbook of Texas link under references—what is your rationale for this? Also, on the UT and A&M articles, they claimed that they are the flagship institution of their respective university system—so is UH—why do you keep removing it? UH is not a flagship of the state, but is a flagship of its own system. For example, Texas State University-San Marcos is the flagship institution of the Texas State University System—this is not academic boosterism. Also, the term "extensive" research university is a classification of universities—UT, A&M, UH, Texas Tech, UT-Arlington, and UNT are in this category. Additionally, the Texas Tech article claimed that they are a nationally recognized doctoral degree granting university as well—I don't see a source for this either. Why don't you go remove it. I made some copyedits and turned "2nd" to "second," etc. RJN 14:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

RJN, why do we have to argue about every incorrect point you bring up. "Extensive Research University" is an out of date classification used by the Carnegie Foundation to classify Universities. The last time Carnegie used this was in 2000. The new 2005 ranking system no longer uses this criteria. See:[12] Don't forget RJN, the onus is on you to provide reasons for including stuff in the article. Wiki policy is clear. When there is a doubt, leave it out. Dothivalla 14:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The article continued to say flagship in the Infobox to the right of the para that mentioned the flagship status. I thought it was redundant, but leave it in if you must. If you want to cut out the term "nationally recognized" from the texas tech article go right ahead. Dothivalla 14:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, thanks for citing some of the things in the article. RJN 14:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Research Spending Claims

I tracked down the cite for the Research Spending Claims: [13] The number is not particularly noteworthy as UH spend 75.9 Million. This makes UH rank 8th out of 10 in the state and clearly outside of the National Science foundation's top 100 (see page 11 of the report). I am removing the claims Dothivalla 16:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Research Spending Claims Updated

I took a look at the reference [14] and put the research claims in context. I don't thinks it's accurate to compare UH's research spending to that of research hopsitals. ---- Steve

Looks great! Dothivalla 20:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Architecture Claims

I can't verify a lot of the architecture claims:

"perennially considered in the top 3 architecture schools in the state of Texas."

I cant find the school ranked anywhere in this way. See the Design Intelligence [15] ranking. Additionally the school appears on the Architecture Sociology's "Worst School" List at: http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/researchschool4.html

"Architecture Sociology?" I've spent a few minutes at this site, and I still don't see anything that would make me want to take them seriously. I don't think this list is authoritative in any way. Vox Univoaks 00:00, 13 February 2006 (CST)

"The school received a perfect 37/37 in NAAB accreditation, and enjoys a five-year accreditation certificate. It was the first architecture school in the state of Texas to receive a perfect NAAB score. UH is one of only 36 national schools to have both an accredited Bachelor's and Master's degree in Architecture."

I can validate that it got the certificate from [16]. NAAB never notes in their extensive statistic set on UH that the school earned a perfect score. See: [17]

"It recently added an industrial design program, also the first in the state of Texas."

UH makes the claim here [18]

"Students frequently earn top honors in regional, national, and international competitions."

I can't find this. Is there an award list somehwere?

"Joe Mashburn is the current Dean. Famous alumni of the College are Neil Denari, Carlos Jimenez, Gene Aubry, Burdette Keeland and Walid Bugazia."

I will assume this is true. Dothivalla 16:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Carlos Jimenez is relatively well-known in Mexico. Burdette Keeland designed several buildings in Houston and was on the city's Planning Commission for several years. Vox Univoaks 00:00, 13 February 2006 (CST)

Business School Claims

The article is extremely disingenuous right now. Specifically

-->U.S. News & World Report ranks the Bauer College of Business as the top Undergraduate Business Program in Houston, third among public universities in the state of Texas, and 44th in the nation among public universities.<-- According to a public version of the list at [19] UH is the only Undergrad program in Houston (Rice doesn't have one), so I guess its the best best because its the only game in town. The next cite talks about how its the third best public school in Texas, well there are only 3 public university systems in texas that offer undergrad business and participated in the US News survey! Last it claims to be ranked 44th out of public undergrad rankings. Well they are tied for 44 with 11 other schools (so essentially 44 through 55) out of 75 programs in the country. Hardly noteworthy.

-->The ranking places the Bauer College in the top quartile of the approximately 400 AACSB-accredited undergraduate business programs and top five percent among all 1608 undergraduate business programs in the United States.<-- This statement assumes that all Universities that were not ranked in the US News rankings would have ranked below UH. This is a huge assumption. Many schools simply choose not to participate in the rankings like Reed College.

-->The MBA Program ranked 5th among public universities for CEOs of S&P 500 companies, according to Bloomberg Markets. Houston was tied with the University of Michigan and Dartmouth.<-- I can't find that survey anywhere! The closest I can find is USA Today's annual survey of Fortune 1000 CEOs which lists UH of having exactly 1 CEO: [20]. The Bauer College of Business puts out an annual report listing their number of S&P 500 CEOs. There list shows only three! [21]


-->The EMBA Program ranked 17th in the U.S. among public EMBA programs according to the 2004 Financial Times ranking of the top 75 EMBA Programs in the World.<-- This is true but completely disingenuous at the same time. UH came in ranked as 75 out of 75. There were only 17 schools from the US ranked.[22]

This entire section needs to be deleted until someone can populate it with substantive figures with real cites!Dothivalla 17:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the "business claims" and you can find those claims here. http://www.bauer.uh.edu/Future/rank.htm They are also on the annual report that you linked.RJN 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything to offer about the ranks being completely disingenuous? I am reverting this until you actually address the claims. I went to the primary sources of these claims and described how they are baloney. You went back to a secondary source to re-iterate the spun version. Address the disingenuous issue before you revert.Dothivalla 19:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

They might be "disingenuous" to you and that is your opinion since you have such dislike and negative views toward this school. They should not be deleted because those rankings are technically true, are they not? Notable or not is subjective and is subject to people's interpretations. Those rankings are not false or made up so they should not be deleted. I am adding them back. I am also adding back the $75.9 million dollar figure because it adds information and informs people—it doesn't have to do anything with being notable or not. RJN 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The lets compromise and put down the full rank of UH based off the rankings. I'll change the article to reflect that Dothivalla 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The S&P 500 CEO claim can't stay. The UH cite is based off of a previous edition of the rankings. The updated story omits UH all together. If you want this claim to stick find a bloomberg cite for it [23]Dothivalla 22:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

MedCab Request

This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed.
Some statements may be disputed or incorrect.
The Mediation Cabal invites you to please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.
Please assume good faith, refrain from name calling and observe Wikiquette.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Hi, we received a request from one of the participants on this article to get involved and help out in working out some differences on this article. Feel free to discuss the issues here or on the MedCab Case page.

It appears to me there are two main participants and you are working out your differences but I'm willing to help out any way I can. --Wgfinley 01:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is this little UT prick? Look, you little shit...go over the UT-San Antonio, I mean Austin site, and construct your own school's propaganda machine. You all win the most pretentious pricks in the world award. All of these "credentials" from US News and World Report are abundantly arbitary and the vast majority of academia scoff at them. In addition, pull up some professional association's reviews and you will find contradicting data even amongst the professionals of various fields.

How does this name-calling advance this discussion? I have degrees from both UH and UT-Austin. While I agree that USN&WR's college rankings are arbitrary and biased, name-calling like "little UT prick" doesn't make matters any better. Way too many UH boosters live in a world of paranoia wherein UT, A&M, the Houston Chronicle, etc. are out to get poor little "Cougar High." It's time to grow up. The University of Houston is a quality institution that serves a vital purpose as the largest educational institution in the nation's fourth-largest city. But, as a "commuter school," it has its issues as well. Let's see if we can have a discussion about UH without all the typical "UT and A&M are out to get us" crap. --vox univoaks 00:00, 13 February 2006 (CST)

Allison

Does anyone think that Tropical Storm Allison deserves to be mentioned on this page? Fishhead|§

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Houston. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on University of Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on University of Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Eric Woods

Okay, so I found only a couple of mentions of this guy online. One is here- https://www.crunchbase.com/person/eric-woods-2 . I also found a LinkedIn for him as well. He seems to run something called the Woods Family Office, "devoted to the preservation of the Woods family's private wealth." Other than that, I can't find anything on the guy. He seems to keep an extremely low profile. I don't know if he needs to be in the article or not, but it appears he might just be real. Maybe. I'm not 100% tbh. MostlyTexasArticles (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Does this Mr. Woods have any connection to the University of Houston?--Quisqualis (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Idk. He was in the article for some reason and someone said he isn't real. He is, but yeah, what the hell does he have to do with UofH? So anyway. Real (probably), but not in the article anymore anyway. MostlyTexasArticles (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

2017 court case

Lord Monboddo is insisting that this article include this information in the "Housing" subsection of the "Student life" section:

In June 2017, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the university did not violate the Constitution's Due Process Clause or Title IX when it expelled both a student for committing a campus sexual assault in a dorm room then abandoning the nude victim in a dorm elevator, as well as his girlfriend, who had recorded the assault and shared the video on social media.[1][2]

This is certainly a tragedy but I'm puzzled why someone would insist to the point of edit warring that this information be included in this article. What are readers supposed to learn from this information? How is it critical to readers' understanding of the history and organization of this university? ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I’d probably agree with you if we were talking about an isolated criminal incident. The subject of the federal appeals court case and the Harvard Law Review article, however, was the civil rights challenge to the university’s expulsion process. The primary and secondary source both extensively discuss the university’s administrative hearings and the level of process victims and perpetrators can expect from the university’s tribunals. Readers interested in the history of the university’s administration would want to know it decided to follow the Obama Administration’s Dear Colleague letter regarding sexual assault. It is now binding circuit precedent throughout Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi that this expulsion process is constitutionally adequate.
I would also question whether readers are only interested in the “history and organization of this university”. As a tertiary source, we should simply reflect what is discussed as notable in the secondary sources. This crime attracted significant notoriety from varied and various sources.[3][4][5][6] And I think it likely that it is something a prospective student or parent would want to know. Lord Monboddo (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Note, Fifth Circuit Holds that Due Process Standards May Be Lowered in the Presence of “Overwhelming” Video and Photographic Evidence of Guilt, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 634 (2017).
  2. ^ Plummer v. University of Houston, 860 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 2017).
  3. ^ Ellis, Lindsay (27 June 2017). "Court affirms ruling in UH sex assault case - HoustonChronicle.com". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
  4. ^ Smith, Cara; Samora, Sara (26 October 2014). "Expelled UH students sue the University". The Daily Cougar. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
  5. ^ "Students sue UH over videotaped sexual encounter". ABC13 Houston. 24 October 2014. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
  6. ^ Cohen, Craig (23 October 2014). "Sexual Assault on Campus, Foreign Exchange Students, and the Tontons: Houston Matters for Thursday, October 23, 2014". Houston Public Media. Retrieved 17 June 2019.

Cynthia D. Ritchie

Greetings,

Wikipedia has an article Cynthia D. Ritchie, you are requested to update, expand, copy edit the article. Also you can help the same by adding the article to your watch list.

Bookku (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Houston/Archive_1&oldid=1172578200"