Talk:University of Nevada, Las Vegas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas article.
Article policies
WikiProject Nevada This article is part of WikiProject Nevada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nevada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Professor Das

Whoever keeps putting Biswajit Das in the alumna section needs to quit it.Ender86 02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biswajit Das is not an alumnus, he's a professor. He is not world famous or even notable just yet. Also, you spelled his name incorrectly. Ender86 02:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)ender86

[edit] Logo fix

UNLV Logo should be depixilated.

Over-scaling on the logo has been fixed. The current logo really should be replaced by a bigger, more up-to-date version, though.

Parallelism problem in "Faculty" section now corrected. More information on the second professor is requested, though.

There are higher resolution logos at http://web.unlv.edu/imagesLogos.html but I'm not sure if they are permitted to be used here or not.

[edit] what

do they offer?


anything in fashion?

[edit] Hoppe conspicuously non-notable

Hoppe is not a notable academic. He is on par with many others at UNLV. Hoppe is not sourced anywhere as having influence on economics. If you do a google search, one finds resources such as his personal website, his webpage within the economics dept at UNLV, and lists of his publications. Most other professors have the same kinds of internet listings.

In fact, Hoppe is not even a "distinguished professor," he is a "full professor." Bremskraft July 17, 2007

Believe it or not, there are plenty of notable assistant professors in this world. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
or Not Bremskraft July 17, 2007

[edit] Hoppe unquestionably notable

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is easily notable, even if only for the 2005 nationwide controversy (see his wiki page). He has published or edited 9 books, and is considered by many in the Austrian School to be the fifth dean of that school, after Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, and the late Murray Rothbard. Given that the same editor removing him here also tried to have the wiki article on Hoppe removed, there may be some POV editing afoot, methinks. --RayBirks 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Many academics at UNLV have published multiple books. To elevate Hoppe above the others makes little sense. And, you'll have to forgive me, but being considered the "5th dean of the Austrian school" means little if it is not sourced. Bremskraft July 17, 2007
It has to do with how many people have noted the subject. I'm not sure why you'd delete Hoppe while leaving others who are even less notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Who is less notable?Bremskraft July 17, 2007
Dave Loeb (Jazz studies professor)
Richard L. Baldwin - Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, ShuffleMaster, Inc.
Marcus Glasgow - Cinematographer/Director of Photography television and film
For example. The usual rule of thumb for inclusion in these lists is the existence of a biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Dave Loeb has apparently been the musician for many soundtracks (including the Disney soundtracks to The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, Titanic, Geppetto, Family Guy, American Dad, L.A. Law, Hill Street Blues, Quantum Leap, Harlem Nights,The A-team) and has recordings with Curtis Mayfield and Fran Jefferies - but I have no objection to deleting him.
Richard Baldwin: I have no objection to deleting him - I was mostly looking at faculty not alumni.
Marcus Glasgow has been the cinematographer for several television programs ("Mission Impossible" (TV Series), "Hart To Hart", "Dynasty") - but I have no objection to deleting him.
Bremskraft July 17, 2007
Please leave Hoppe's name up until the resolution of the AfD. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm new here, but wouldn't it make more sense to leave his name off until the AfD is resolved? Bremskraft July 17, 2007
Wait, I think I have a solution: [1] --Bremskraft 05:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That's just being tendentious. Don't forget to finish filling in the AfD and post it on the main AfD page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Tendentious? You yourself said that the strongest source on his wiki page was a link to his "controversy." All the other links lead to his personal website or wiki pages to his books.--Bremskraft 16:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Since you keep protesting that you're "new here", please take the advice of someone who is not new here. Neutrality requires that we treat people with a certain equality. Even if the guy were notable for being an axe murderer we'd still simply list him under "notable faculty". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree that neutrality is important and I do not believe I have been un-neutral. My interests and concern lay with facts and merits - should they not also be taken into consideration? If we are to take your standards for who is a notable academic, one would have at least 200 more faculty under the "notable faculty" list.--Bremskraft 21:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The standard I follow for inclusion in lists of notable faculty, alumni, residents, etc, is the existence of a Wikipedia article. If there are other UNLV faculty or alumni who have biographies on WP then we should certainly add their names. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colleges/Departments etc

Look at Caltech and Iowa State University. Their articles each simply list colleges, and not 80 some odd departments. Moreover, I think it looks terrible to add two or three select departments arbitrarily without listing them all. It's inconsistent. Tparameter (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoppe Again

IronAngelAlice, Sorry to come late - but, I don't see you having had participated in a discussion on this topic. Anyway, I went to Hoppe's page, and the controversy is spelled out there clearly. This article doesn't seem like the right place for it. Besides, I don't think you characterized the controvery accurately. For instance, your source doesn't say anything about "Americans", yet you did. Also, the source left out some details, where the professor was talking about old folks, children, and gays - yet your source only mentions the part about gays. It's neither here nor there, however. I just don't see why the UNLV page needs to get into it at all. Tparameter (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable faculty

Should all faculty with wikipedia articles be included here? Tparameter (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. Short-term visiting faculty may be an exception, but otherwise every professor with an article should be included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks for the opinion. Hopefully no one minds - but, I'll work on it. I'll add the faculty in the category, at least. Uh, but I think I'll leave off the justification for now. In fact, is justification even a good idea? Maybe, if articles are the prereq, we should just have a list of names. Tparameter (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed that all notable faculty are not living. Is this standard? Also, all notable faculty are not current faculty. Is this standard? For now I have not included more of these types. Tparameter (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's wise to describe their chief notability. It's too easy to get it wrong. It's sufficient to give their linked name and their department or field. Folks who want to learn more acan follow the links. It's OK to add a small number of notable entries that don't yet have an article, if you really think they deserve an article and meet WP:BIO. In those cases a link to a source that establishes their notability should be included, and perhaps a very short summary of claim to notability (e.g. "leading authority on Bret Harte"). That's already done in the alumni list. For these notability lists it's typical to include both living and dead without separating them. Folks who were notable in life remain notable in death, aside from the changing winds of fame. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like good advice - especially given the controversies over notability of various people. I'll work on it, and I guess we'll see if there is dissent. Thanks. Tparameter (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is already discussed above ad naseum. (See above.) It is important to note that the reason Hoppe has a page on wikipedia is because his students included him. There are about several hundred more notable people at UNLV than Hoppe (who also have better academic qualifications). The only citations for Hoppe's page that are not blogs or his own websites (the Mises instititute and his personal websites), are from the Las Vegas Review Journal and the Las Vegas Sun. These citations talk about what some call the "academic freedom" incident, and what others call his "homophobia." Please take a look at the References on his page. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You say it's been discussed "ad naseum", but I don't see why you should be nauseated, since you didn't participate in the discussions as far as I can tell. I'm new to this page, and all I see discussed to death is Hoppe's notability - which I don't think is disputable. (By the way, you seem to still dispute it, even though apparently you're feeling some nausea.) Either way, this topic is not about Hoppe - and if you read the first entry you will see that. So, respond to this topic, or please start a new thread. Tparameter (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tp, your argument isn't making sense. Try not to attack me. Let's talk about the merits of the compromise: which is to list the reason for the controversy. The "academic freedom" and "homophobia" controversies are the reasons for Hoppe's "noteworthiness." This was established on his article page. For this reason, we can list this on the UNLV page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm attacking you? How so? Anyway, here is my question: When and where did you discuss these issues previously, so I might read the discussion?

Previously, you noted that it was "(above)", but I don't see you having had taken part in the discussion - so I guess I'm wondering why you said it was discussed "ad nauseam", which seems like an overly-dramatic characterization given that my question was simply, "should all faculty with wikipedia articles be included here?" Tparameter (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't have to be part of any discussion to cite a discussion. Please discuss the merits of my argument for the wording I propose. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. If you're happy, I'm happy. If you want something different, let's talk about it. Also, sorry about the other bit - it's just that I hear people say "ad nauseam" a lot these days, and I'm always driven to inquire about the associated nausea. Don't take it too seriously. Tparameter (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it helpful to explain to the reader what the controversy entailed. That's all.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about UNLV, not about Hoppe. If readers want further info, they can go directly to his article. Besides, your summary is inaccurate. Tparameter (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
In what way is it inaccurate?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hoppe's page spells out the controversy. Anyway, I tried to discuss it with you previously, so I might as well try one more time. Here, I'll cut and paste my previous attempt from above: For instance, your source doesn't say anything about "Americans", yet you did. Also, the source left out some details, where the professor was talking about old folks, children, and gays - yet the source only mentions the part about gays. It's neither here nor there, however. I just don't see why the UNLV page needs to get into it at all. Tparameter (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I took out the part about "Americans." Also, the controversy did not concern children and old people. The controversy was specifically about gays and lesbians. If you follow the references, a grievance was filed by a gay student for what he believed to be unprofessional conduct by Professor Hoppe. I agree that the UNLV page doesn't need to "get into it all," however, a little context doesn't hurt.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The professor said that certain demographic groups should tend to essentially save less since they tend to not have children - these groups include old people, children, and gays. I think your summary will make people think that gays were targeted, when in fact it was one student who was offended because he was part of one of the groups mentioned. Apparently there weren't any old folks or children, or at least those who were offended, at the lecture. Do you see the distinction? Tparameter (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You have a point. I will make the change that reflects that.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)