Talk:University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on University of Hawaii at Manoa. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218201733/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US1517000&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US1517000&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901093934/http://www.hawaii.edu/chs/ to http://www.hawaii.edu/chs/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604160149/http://manoa.hawaii.edu/housing/challs/compare to http://manoa.hawaii.edu/housing/challs/compare
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105230238/http://www.manoa.hawaii.edu/housing/familygrad/halls to http://manoa.hawaii.edu/housing/familygrad/halls
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 17:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Homophobic influence?
I find it interesting that this article (as well as Rainbow Warriors) fails to mention homophobia as a seemingly important reason for the rejection of the rainbow as a team symbol. Though I do not know much about the history of "Rainbow Warrior" in the context of the University of Hawai‘i, it seems apparent that certain segments of society are unwilling to use the rainbow, a rather universal symbol, when it is also a symbol of the LGBT community. To not mention this in the article comes off as a glaring omission. If I knew more about the issue, I'd edit the article; instead, I'd love to see someone more knowledgeble flesh this out. :: Salvo (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Or, you could be a conspiracy theorist. "Rainbow" is not a tough name for a football team. Chris (クリス) (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Orange Sculpture
Does anyone know about the orange sculpture on the corner of dole and east west? A friend told me that it's supose to be a middle finger flipping people off as they walk to school from the dorms. Another told me it was towards the Enginerring builiding. Rockmusic389
I heard that story too. It looks like similar to a middle finger when viewed from dole street near the description pedestal. Bostonvaulter 06:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It's called the gates of Hope
Addition of scandals section
The recent addition titled "Scandals" by user: Chancellorreplacement was removed for many reasons. Entries should be encyclopedic in nature with proper refs and coding. User made no attempt to format. (see wp:cite for how to do that) Also, it's poor form to list in a first, second, third format. Their username lends me to believe there is a conflict of interest or, simply, from a non-neutral pov. Discuss here please. Travis Thurston+ 02:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Travis Thurston stated: the "Scandals" addition "was removed for many reasons." This is somewhat of an exaggeration and may indicate a non-neutral bias regarding the subject matter.
Next, Travis Thurston stated: "Entries should be encyclopedic in nature with proper refs and coding." To the contrary, all factual statements contained in the "Scandals" addition are linked to a reliable reference such as a newspaper article or report in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
Further, Travis Thurston stated: "User made no attempt to format." This is not an accurate statement. The paragraphs are formatted in a logical sequence consistent with the entire article (with the exception that the sources are included in the paragraphs themselves rather than in a footnote). The rationale for this was because of sensitivity to anticipated readers' desire to have the source readily available rather than having to look for the source in the footnotes section. However, if it is mandatory that all sources be in footnote format, then be a good Wikipedian and help out here rather than deleting and suppressing the entire section which many readers may find useful and informative.
Moreover, Travis Thurston stated: "It's poor form to list in a first, second, third format." This is a highly subjective comment and not really very helpful. Many readers appreciate tightly logical paragraph formatting. This facilitates reading flow and comprehension. Others, as yourself, may have a personal preference for something else. Having too rigid composition rules may not serve the best interests of Wikipedia because no two individuals have the exact same composition style.
Finally, Travis Thurston stated: "Their username lends me to believe there is a conflict of interest or, simply, from a non-neutral pov." That is quite a large assumption, with no evidentiary support for such a conclusory remark. In fact, your unsupported conclusion tends to indicate bias and one-sided perspective. Chancellorreplacement (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:University of Hawaiʻi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Diacritics
Shouldn't the page title include diacritics: University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, with this page then redirecting to the one with diacritics? Gholton (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
presidents
This section should be moved to the University of Hawaii system page.--Gmosaki 19:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
2004 enrollment increase
I found a newspaper article about the 2004 enrollment increase http://web.archive.org/web/20040613173019/http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/May/19/ln/ln03a.html WhisperToMe (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Notability of specific buildings
Beginning on May 31, Pxion130 added a partial listing of UH-Manoa buidings to this article. I reverted this addition, commenting that this listing was overly detailed and giving WP:UNDUE weight to the buildings, which really are not very notable. Pxion130 reverted back and added a message to my user talk page explaining that "Most wikip ages regarding flagship institutions provide information about buildings on their campus", particularly their "historical building [sic]."
I'm re-reverting this to the status quo of the article as it existed before May 31 and invite other editors to note their thoughts here. In particular, I assert that including full subsections for each of the buildings here is undue (the buildings are Hawaii Hall, Gartley Hall, George Hall, Dean Hall, Crawford Hall, and Snyder Hall). There is no indication at all from the text added that these buildings are in any way notable. Except for the prose describing Snyder Hall, each entry added only lists when the building was built and who it was named after. There is no indication explaining why these buildings are significant. As for Snyder Hall, there are two paragraphs describing the research that took place in the hall but no indication why the building itself is significant. I note that none of these buildings appear to be listed on either the Hawaii Register of Historic Places or the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the entire campus section is lacking in reliable sources; all are sourced to the UH Campus Map or UH Library or UH press releases.
Pxion130 noted the University of Wisconsin-Madison article included a listing of its notable buildings, which isn't really relevant because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, I do note that that campus section of that article does a much better job of (1) asserting why the buildings listed are notable (with exceptions; some of the fluff there should probably be removed) and (2) including sources that are independent of the university. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Removal of acronyms
I propose the removal of most of the acronyms. Specifically: CTAHR, CALL, & LLL; there is also an undefined acronym, CTARH, which might be a typo. None of these is used elsewhere in the article, & is useless jargon to anyone outside of UH. Think of the mainland or non-academic reader, since these acronyms mean nothing to them & just take up space.
SOEST is different. Not only is is sparingly reused in the article, but there is a redirect to the section where it is mentioned, plus it is commonly used & recognizable outside of UH. Peaceray (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral on the removal of CTAHR, support removal of others. I agree with your rationale. Regarding CTAHR, that acronym is widely used within the Hawaii agricultural and government communities, I would argue more widely than its full name, and the college seems to actively market itself under the CTAHR name, unlike the other colleges. I do understand your rationale though so I wouldn't object to its removal. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)