Talk:University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 6 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aharlfinger, Ahannon18, IanGiftMwalago, VedoA, JaredAlmeida, Avanig46, Haleyreis, Aduodu1, Pedreroaam, JoeDonovan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

The Japanese midget rumor was mentioned in The Torch. It did seem like a joke, but just for safety's sake I included it. -- LGagnon 05:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I saw that article now. The Clockwork Orange comparison is apt :)

I can confirm that the suicide rumor was rampant in the '80s though (back then, the usual story was that he found the big concrete lobby areas depressing after seeing them built). --iMb~Meow 06:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images

I love how someone took the high res images I put in here and replaced them with grainy knock offs of the same places. Drake P. 17:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sodexho Contract

Rumor has said that Sodexho's contract has expired and we are no longer going to use them for food services. If someone can confirm, this needs changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CranstonIde (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem of the Week

I added the link to the problem of the week since I do it every week. Its very fun. Give it a try! - Terrible school. A year of my life was spent here. One I won't miss.Freddy Tsao

Academics Departments

Do we really need this section? It doesn't seem to add much to the article other than bloat. -- LGagnon 04:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, the higher ed collaboration is/was working on a set of sections that should be in each article. While the section is currently nothing more than a list, it should eventually link to the different schools and majors. Vvuppala 04:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• However, the list is not internally consistent. The undergraduate section lists organizational units (departments), which do not correspond precisely to majors. (For example, the Charlton Department of Accounting and Finance offers the two majors that its name suggests.) The graduate section lists degrees offered, such as (again from Charlton), MBA. I'm not in a position to make value judgments as to which is more useful or otherwise more appropriate, but there should be some consistency between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.248.128 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dan Rubin is not famous

he doesnt exist and further more I am deleting it now cause he sucks. -- User:Utterlunacy

This article is not your personal opinion column. -- LGagnon 12:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Little Red Book Controversy

I removed the phrase "the leader of the depression era 'Clyde Barrow Gang'" after the name of Clyde Barrow as it seemed to me to be a joke or hoax. The gangster Clyde Barrow died in 1934. MacPhilbin 01:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the references in this section look and work better if recycled to go into the reflist? Rammer (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UMass-Dartmouth-logo2007.png

Image:UMass-Dartmouth-logo2007.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC on disambiguation

Please see RfC at Talk:Dartmouth#Dartmouth:_Disambiguation_or_Redirection.3F. --Noleander (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Not an Alumnus

Someone added Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of Boston Marathon Bombings infamy to the list of notable UMD alumni and someone else took him off the list on the ground that he was not an alumnus. The stated objection was slightly incorrect: any former student is in fact an alumnus, even if they never earned a degree. Tsarnaev is not an alumnus— but not because he hasn't earned a degree. He is (as of the day he was arrested) still currently a student, although he presumably will be unable to continue his studies. Aside from the fact that the university might expel him, he is facing a life (or even death) sentence if (as seems almost certain) he is found guilty of any one of the many crimes he is being charged with. (Also, some news reports have stated that he was getting bad grades and was about to flunk out.) In any case, he will be an alumnus at some point in the future, once his classmates graduate, even if he himself never graduates. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

He is of course not really a notable person per se, aside from being one of two perpetrators of a horrendous crime. I doubt he will ever rate his own Wikipedia article. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

He has his own Wikipedia page infused with his deceased brother. Regardless of the things he did, he is famous for be it good or bad reasons. Heck, even the DC Snipers have their own Wikipedia pages as well as McVeigh and the failed 2010 Times Square bomber. Dzhokhar is notable to have (and will eventually) his own Wikipedia page. If some random Korean football player who plays in a Korean football can have his own page, then he will. weka (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I still think that he should be mentioned somewhere on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I just read the discussion here and apologize for my mistake... I was the one who originally removed the name from the list for not being an alumnus... it seems that I was right that he wasn't an alumnus, but for the wrong reasons, as noted above. I had been operating off the definition of "alumnus" included elsewhere on Wikipedia: "An alumnus (masculine, plural 'alumni') or alumna (feminine, plural 'alumnae') is a graduate of a school, college, or university." That said, I admit that I had just recently made a second correction re-removing the name with a similar reason before someone pointed out this discussion out to me; only then did I realize my error. So, again, my removal of his name from the alumnus list is currently correct at the present time, even if my stated reason may be off, depending on the definition of alumnus used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.187.192 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but that's a misunderstanding of the modern definition of "alumnus." For better or worse - worse, IMHO - it has become watered down to simply mean "anyone who attended" without regard to whether they graduated. I suspect this has been driven by the desire to make the alumni pool larger so institutions can solicit money from more people but I'm not completely sure if the historical record would support that (but I'm about 85% sure it would). ElKevbo (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Dzhokhar Tsarnev does not belong in the "Notable Alumni" section. While the exact definition of the word "Alumni" may be up for debate here, Tsarnev does not in any way meet the definition of the word "notable" (Worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.) There are people who have done remarkable things on this list, and including a terrorist on the list is not only wrong, but it is also doing a disservice to the other people included on this list. Tsarnev's story belongs somewhere else on this page, perhaps under the "History" section, but he should not be regarded as a "Notable Alumni". For that reason, I will once again remove his name from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.144.51 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV and WP:N; in short, notability isn't dependent on your whether you like something or someone but on whether the subject has received a significant amount of attention in reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

To assert that what Tsarnaev has done isn't notable is, to put it succinctly, ignorant. I'm guessing you're a student at his university, and I can see why his actions would outrage the student body. But to insinuate that he's not "notable" because his fame/notoriety comes from a heinous criminal act, is wrong. By that same logic, Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, John Wayne Gacy, Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Hitler, Pol Pot, Joseph Kony, etc are not notable or worthy of inclusion on this project because they, too, were evil. Notability does NOT carry with it an implied positive connotation. Notability can be good, bad or indifferent. Dzhokar Tsarnaev has been talked about in the news more times in the past two weeks than any person on the planet. His criminal act has headlined CNN, MSNBC, USA Today, BBC, etc for the past two weeks. A Google search of his name yields 320,000,000 results, which grows every hour. Simply put, he is notable. Your continued insistance in engaging in an edit war and removing the content is only going to result in you being blocked from editing. Cut it out. 208.40.242.41 (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

To this day people keep removing him from notable alumni. Whether or not people like it, he's notable and an alumnus. Why is this even a question? 173.166.109.49 (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

While he may fall in alumnus category -- Dzhokar is not "notable"; neither worthy of note, nor, remarkable: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.146.254 (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Because some of us, REAL alumni of UMD, don't like what he did, and want him shunned. - Denimadept (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia chronicles the good, the bad, and the ugly. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Denimadept, shun him all you want, but don't use Wikipedia as your platform. Please limit yourself to arguments based in Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have restored Tsarnaev again. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why not just preface the list with a specification that it contains graduates from the school? Including this name on the list seems WP:UNDUE. He was also a marine biology major, but we don't include his name on a list of marine biologists; he was born in Kyrgyzstan, but gets no mention in that article. The purpose of listing alumni is generally to note people whose later notable activities stemmed in some part from their college activities (as noted in another discussion on this topic, Pooch Hall for example joined an acting club at Dartmouth, which preceded his success as an actor). Unless there was a bomb-making club at Dartmouth, the association in this case is undue, and is redundant to the existence of a category for Dartmouth alumni which includes his name. bd2412 T 19:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  No one was concerned about the inclusion criteria until someone came along who some people didn't want in the list, for emotion-based reasons completely disconnected from Wikipedia principles and policy. Now, suddenly, the criteria are too loose and need refinement. Sorry but that fails the smell test. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  I'm offering a solution. It makes sense to discuss people whose notability was launched by obtaining a degree here, not to use this page as a WP:COATRACK for a figure who lacks that kind of connection. bd2412 T 23:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  Pointing to a degree as the cause of a subject's notability would seem somewhat problematic from a sourcing point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  Another example of a poor fit currently on the page is Joe Proctor, who attended but did not graduate, and did not take up martial arts (for which he became notable) until after he left the university. By contrast, there are people like Scott Ferson who got a degree in political science and then engaged in politics, and Susan Mohl Powers, whose M.F.A. preceded her notability in the fine arts. bd2412 T 00:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  This proposal needs wider participation as it affects all colleges and universities and probably high schools. Perhaps a RFC on Wikiproject Universities. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  That's an idea worth discussing but to the best of my knowledge it does not reflect current practice in this or any other similar article. Without such a discussion - or at least tacit approval/acceptance signaled by edits made along those lines that are retained without objection for some period of time - it's unseemly to try to impose these new and unique standards to this article. ElKevbo (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If any admins are wandering by, this article could probably benefit from semi-protection as UMass Dartmouth IPs are hitting it repeatedly. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The definition of 'alumni' as "graduates or former students" leaves room for interpretation because of the use of the conjunction 'or' instead of 'and', thus implying subjectivity. The use of 'and' would mean that both graduates and those who attended at any point would be considered alumni. Because this is not the case, the decision of whether or not non-graduates are included in 'alumni' should be left up to individual colleges and universities.

Some examples of non-graduates being excluded from the definition: http://alumni.harvard.edu/terms http://cms.bsu.edu/about/administrativeoffices/alumni/aboutus/policies/wordusepolicy http://www.antioch.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/7.201-Distinguished-Alumni-Award.pdf http://sydney.edu.au/internationalhouse/documents/Proposed_SUIHAA_Charter_2012.pdf

In addition, the disagreement between definitions of 'alumni' alone is proof of subjectivity. The following links all make the clear distinction that alumni are graduates.

http://grammarist.com/usage/alumna-alumnae-alumni-alumnus http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/alumni.html http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/alumnus http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/alumnus

Tsarnev is not a graduate, the only definitive definition of 'alumnus', and should be eliminated from the page. 71.174.171.2 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

And again, this proposal affects all university/college articles and should be made in a central location. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

While it does affect all higher education articles, this issue is currently affecting this article and needs to be resolved. It's ridiculous that the page has to be semi-protected, restricting other changes from being made. 71.174.171.2 (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, why it is suddenly urgent to resolve this for this article, just when Tsarnaev becomes an issue? That list has existed for about 9 years; need I pin down how long it has contained non-graduates? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It is unlikely the majority of people who visit the page recognize most of the names on that list, nevermind know whether or not they are actual graduates. The addition of Tsarnaev stands out because it is known that not only did he not graduate, but he is also not 'notable'. Being a terrorist is hardly "worthy of note", "distinguished", "remarkable", "outstanding", etc.

The timing hardly matters. Nothing is going to be noticed until something calls attention to it. Tsarnaev's addition called attention to this discrepancy. 71.174.171.2 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTABILITY. No special attention is needed for this article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Apparently you don't understand what "notable" means in the Wikipedia context. It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with words like "distinguished", "remarkable", and "outstanding". See WP:Notability. Tsarnaev has qualified for his own article, and the standard there is even higher than that for a list such as this. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The entire thing boils down to whether or not 1) he's an alumni of the university and 2) whether he's notable. As to the first point, the definition of alumni is "graduate OR former student." Tsarnaev is a former student, he meets that criteria. The second is whether or not he's notable. I've seen the (ridiculous) arguments that notability only pertains to the positive things, and not the negative. That's simply untrue. Tsarnaev is notable, by any metric you look at. "Worthy of note" is not, itself, inherently positive. There are very negative things that are "worthy of note," the Holocaust, for example, is worthy of note. As to whether or not he's "remarkable," you have to look at "remarkable" in a neutral aspect as well. Remarkable is a synonym of things like "incredible," which can be used to show a degree of happiness or sadness, thus, it's not only a positive connotation. Other synonyms for "remarkable" are stunning, momentous, unbelievable, etc. All of which can be used to refer to the crimes he's convicted of committing. Simply put, the fact that UMass Dartmouth students and alumni don't want him associated with their school, is irrelevant, he clearly meets the criteria for inclusion. We don't just include only the good people. Aaron Hernandez is still listed in various places. The Unabomber is still listed as an alumni of UM. 208.40.242.41 (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Page semi-protected

Without predjudice to any outcome of any discussion regarding content or any policies or guidelines governing the inclusion of former students in school/college articles, I have temporarily restricted the editing of this article in order to stop the edit warring. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Did something go awry? AN IP editor just edited a moment ago, and the page protection log shows no entries. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Possily. I've done it again. Should work now. Thanks for the heads up. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Still not working, and still needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This talk page has been semied, not the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

UMass system ranking that are not specific to the Dartmouth campus

I have removed info regarding UMass system ranking that are not specific to the Dartmouth campus (e.g., the Times Higher Education ranking and Reuters ranking) . Such info belong in University of Massachusetts article. --Wcam (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

~ Yes, but UMass Dartmouth is a part of UMass system, thus students need to know these achievements which belong to UMassD as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogandzyuk (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in edit warring. Readers are aware that UMass Dartmouth is a part of UMass system because the lead section said so, and this article is about UMass Dartmouth. The Times Higher Education ranking and Reuters ranking info is off-topic. Readers can refer to University of Massachusetts article for such information. --Wcam (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

~ Dear Wcam, let it be, but I don't find your arguments reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogandzyuk (talk • contribs) 00:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ogandzyuk: The USNews national ranking is about the Dartmouth campus, whereas the Times ranking is about the UMass system. It's very misleading that you list these rankings together in the ranking infobox since they are about different entities. Also, UMass Dartmouth is not even listed in the USNews global ranking so why do you insist on listing it? --Wcam (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

~ It's just because you're not familiar with the UMass - you perceive it wrong. First of all, there is only one diploma within all five campuses, the only difference between all of them - the city where University of Massachusetts degree was granted. There is an separate Office of Institutional Research at the President's office, which not all University Systems have in the country, giving an idea to Reuters, Times, RUR and other to consider University of Massachusetts not as a consolidation of different universities, but as a one university with different locations. Thirdly, there is one payroll, admission, online courses, research systems within all campuses, thus the only difference in terms of administration between all campuses - is their geographical location, the rest remains the same. I personally have been working on different projects with the university, I assume you have more experience in Wiki publishing, but since you're not familiar with the university - I kindly ask you to allow me to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogandzyuk (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ogandzyuk: I understand that Reuters, Times, and RUR consider UMass as one entity, and we both agree that the way Reuters, Times, and RUR treat UMass in their rankings are different than USNews and Washington Monthly do. But if you list all of them together in this article, it is like comparing apples and oranges. Also you say you "personally have been working on different projects with the university", this page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest may be relevant. --Wcam (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

~ Dear Wcam, no, there's no conflict of interest in this matter, I'm neither an employee of the University, nor family members work there. The entire point of my discussion related to ranking - how to perceive UMass & UMassD. I am trying to explain you that UMassD is UMass, while UMass is NOT just UMassD, that's why having relevant ranking info on UMassD's page about UMass' rankings makes more logic. I would agree with you if the information about UMassD was published on UMass' page, here your point would me more reasonable, and there's no reason to post UMassD's rankings on UMass' page. Just for your better understanding, you may be confused with different types of "University Systems". If we look at CUNY/SUNY - there is a coalition of multiple universities, which are run under some specific authority and use the association for their own purpose. But at the same time, you probably heard about University of Toronto. Each agency ranks this university as a whole school, but did you know that there is University of Toronto - Scarborough? Which has its own admission standards and so on? But none of the agencies rank UoT - Scarborough separately, there is only one UofT university. That's the main point of my discussion, that I think these "General" rankings of Reuters, RUR, Times are relevant not only to UMass System's page, but each campus' page, since many students are visiting these pages and think that UMass is different than UMass Amherst, UMass Lowell, UMass Boston, UMass Dartmouth. I think it's good to have this information in educational purposes, so that students/visitors/general audience were aware, that speaking about UMassD's rankings they can also refer to that agencies like RUR, Reuters, Times etc. Thank you for your contribution and patience. If you really want to help with UMass - I would lovely accept your help creating a page for UMass Dartmouth Charlton College of Business. I am going to visit this school sometime this month, and I will take some pictures over there. But if you could build some initial body of the page (you have more skills) - it would be fantastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogandzyuk (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Since our discussion isn't going anywhere I listed it on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Hopefully we get some comments.--Wcam (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion

I agree with Wcam that the info that s/he removed would be more suitable at the main University of Massachusetts article, as that info doesn't appear to apply to the article about this "offspring" campus. (SN: Wcam, I think this would have been better coming from an uninvolved editor (your edit summary states that it was a 3RR violation, but all edit wars aren't necessarily 3RR violations).) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Erpert: Thank you for your input. @Ogandzyuk: If you don't object I will remove the UMass system ranking info. --Wcam (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

List of student clubs and organizations

JaredAlmeida has begun an edit war to add an unsourced listing of student clubs and organizations. Even if a source were added, I would still object to this detailed listing of specific organizations that have no discussion or context. ElKevbo (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2024

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth → UMass Dartmouth – WP:COMMONNAME. Theparties (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The full name provides a WP:TITLECON consistent naming convention across all articles on universities and colleges in the United States. Many reliable sources like Forbes and US News and World Report still use the full name. The OP has also made numerous individual RMs on this same issue like this one, which may violate WP:ACROTITLE or use a shorter common name that is rarely used outside a sports/athletic context. Better to stick to the status quo. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary, unwise, and confusing for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the comments of Zzyzx11. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 16:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)