Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 14

Second RfC

• I think there should be a second RfC on this page, not because of the POV issues (although I still have qualms about them), but because the revert-warring on both sides has become out of control. Danny Lilithborne 08:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support a second issue RFC. The first one focused on the narrow issue of whether or not the article should be tagged for NPOV; it attracted little interest. I think we should give RFC one good shot, with an RFC that addresses all the issues we've been dealing with and invites meaningful, helpful feedback. Even if that doesn't help us with our issues, it'll at least help us show the ArbCom we've done all we can to resolve our disputes, if (God forbid) we have to take that step again. szyslak (t, c, e) 16:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point, going back to the ArbCom would probably be the best line of action. It's clear that an RfC isn't going to do anything because some editors aren't genuinely interested in working out issues. --WHSTalk 09:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always wanted to work out the issues, and I've always tried to maintain an open dialogue. However, several people here (especially Starkt and Teknosoul02) have continually violated WP:AGF, WP:uncivil, WP:NPA, with one of them resorting to profanity/obscenities to the point where all of their arguments and justifications have been based on accusations. The revert war comes from individuals making HUGE deletions without justifying them in TALK. In fact, in the past, Starkt has threatened to make unjustified reverts and he has now carried them out. Actually, I think if anything, an RFA against Starkt is warranted, now that I think about it. UCRGrad 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I never threatened to make unjustified reverts, I threatened to revert unjustified reversions. As for the large chunks of material I've deleted, that material should be deleted. It is obviously POV material. Many of the other editors here besides UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower have -- as far as I'm concerned (and with all due respect for their otherwise excellent contributions) -- been too tolerant of that material in the interests of compromise. But compromises don't alter the fact that the material is POV, and obvious POV. Furthermore, UCRGrad -- who claims to want to dialogue and be flexible -- has never admitted that the material is POV, and it is clear to me that he will never admit that it is. So we are well beyond the point where dialogue would accomplish anything. And every uncivil remark I've made to him has been in reply to his own uncivil remarks. He seems to get away with them. I don't see why I should hold myself to a higher standard which in effect turns out to be a double-standard because Wikipedia won't put an end to UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower's nonsense (but I am nevertheless supposed to take seriously complaints about my own supposed incivility.) starkt 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Starkt's got a point here. Oh, and by the way: Mediation has, for the third time, been rejected by UCRGrad. Apparently we're trying to "silence" him through these dispute resolution procedures. WP:AGF, anyone? --WHSTalk 07:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what "side" of the argument we're talking about, endless reverting is not the way to resolve our differences. Starkt, it doesn't help matters when you more or less promise to auto-revert UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower's edits. I don't care what side you're on; revert warring is revert warring. UCRGrad, nobody's forcing you to revert every time the article strays from your preferred version. And despite what you say, other editors have justified their changes many times over. Why do you think this talk page accumulates 100K every four or five days? Because we're spending all this time talking about the latest Dodger game? szyslak (t, c, e) 16:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it does help matters when I respond to unjustified reversions of my edits by reverting in turn. That is what I promised to do -- to revert unjustified reversions. And by unjustified, I mean reversions attempting to keep in the obviously POV (contrary to Wikipedia policy) material that I have deleted. I am simply going by Wiki's standard that POV material should be removed. I am also removing material that the majority of editors here have said is POV. Given that Wikipedia authorities won't do what they should have done long ago -- take control of this page from the two editors trying to keep in POV material -- and given that other editors here won't grab the bull by the horns, I think my approach is the right one to take. But now that the page is protected (whatever that means -- I'll have to look up the details), I'm not sure what I'm going to do. Maybe I'll just go on to other things. But I advise other editors here who agree that the material I'm trying to get rid of is POV to have the courage of their convictions and insist that it be removed -- and revert as many times as needed to make sure that it stays out. Otherwise, you will have participated in the creation of a POV article. Is that what you want? starkt 07:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of the discussion I hear from your camp is a) UCRGrad is biased b) UCRGrad is trying to POV-push, c) UCRGrad this d) UCRGrad that, etc. That's why it's 100k each day. Furthermore, if Starkt is going to make mass-deletions, you can expect any reasonable person to revert. Such dramatic changes need to be justified - otherwise, there's nothing to stop people from making mass-unjusitifed-deletions to other articles. UCRGrad 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for my "camp", but personally I prefer to address the subject, not the person. I might say "Statement X is biased", but not "User Y is a POV pusher because he advocates Statement X". My own arguments are limited to the merits of such-and-such statement, and have nothing to do with who wrote them or who advocates them. If Jimbo Wales himself came here and inserted biased text, I'd advocate against it just as forcefully as any other potential bias in this article. szyslak (t, c, e) 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My "mass deletions" have been of POV material, in keeping with the Wikipedia NPOV rule. starkt 08:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you were wondering, an open dialogue doesn't consist of "Your argument is flawed and mine is compelling so therefore you're wrong." Also, before you speak on others' violations of AGF, UNCIVIL, and NPA, perhaps you should take a look at your own infraction of those very same rules beforehand. We've cataloged a very extensive list over at your RfC. --WHSTalk 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already seen your RFC, and I countered each and every example. None of them were strict "violations" - you have to force yourself and convince yourself that the specific rule was even violated. So underwhelming was your evidence that only ONE person felt compelled to comment on the last RFC against me, and he was specifically asked to comment by one of the people in your camp (a hardly unbiased context). In fact, in my RFC, I compiled even BETTER evidence that ppl in your camp had actually committed clear violations of WP policy. Perhaps if you people would take the time to address arguments and really consider the possibility that you are wrong (rather than remain argumentative) some of the time, rather than focusing so much on how to round up yet ANOTHER failed attempt to get the admins on your side, this article would make some progress. It's really up to you guys. I notice that a lot of times, you guys make arguments and state reasons that you believe to be justify your contention. However, I provide simple counterarguments, and instead of addressing the counterarguments, you just repeat the original argument or start making accusations against me (which are totally irrelevant). In order to have a meaningful dialogue, you need to address my counterarguments. That's the bottom line. I think deep down inside, in most cases, you know you guys don't really have a strong argument, which is why you're instead appealling to things like RFC/RFA/etc. UCRGrad 16:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So we use processes like RFC and Current Surveys to "get the admins on our side"? No, we use them to invite further input into ongoing issues. Inviting outside views is one of the most fundamental concepts behind dispute resolution. If that bothers you, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and propose a policy change. szyslak (t, c, e) 16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that you know that I'm referring to the equivalent of filing an RfC and then asking one of your friends to "comment" on it, knowing very well that he/she will side with you because of your affiliation. UCRGrad 00:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You hardly countered every violation. All you did was dismiss them like you do with everything. Even in your paragraph here, "I countered each and every example" "Your argument is flawed and mine is compelling so therefore you're wrong." Ring familiar? And by the way, perhaps only one person commented, but did you by any chance fail to see the number of names that signed the RfC on your behavior conduct? Many of them, mind you, weren't involved in the initial conflict. And again, saying "your argument is invalid" doesn't count as addressing it. "I think deep down inside" "you" "don't really have a strong argument", ", which is why you're instead appealling [sp]" to baselessly ignoring the arguments of others. --WHSTalk 16:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if you don't think that he countered every violation why don't tell him specially where he's incorrect or illogical on the RFC discussion page.Insert-Belltower 17:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I-B, perhaps you should read the first two sentences of my last paragraph again. Regarding the RfC discussion page, ElKevbo, Szyslak, and Starkt have already pointed out some of his fallacies there nearly an entire month ago.--WHSTalk 17:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's news to me! UCRGrad 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Except this is no longer about who's right or who's wrong, it's about revert warring, which is disruptive no matter how you slice it. I almost don't even care about the bias anymore; I just want to stop seeing UCR bumped to the top of my watchlist every three hours with yet another rollback. Danny Lilithborne 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC proposal

I think we should try an article RFC as soon as possible. I'll propose a wording for the RFC right here; if anyone has some feedback on other ways we can word it, feel free. I'd like it posted on WP:RFC/SOC as soon as possible, perhaps within the next couple of days. Once we post it, I think we should set aside a section for response, with subsections for each point. I also recommend archiving all discussions prior to the page's protection and/or the RFC, so we have a fresh start without personal attacks and acrimony. Here goes:

• Talk:University of California, Riverside: The page is currently protected after months of disputes regarding the relevance of some sections to the article's subject, the inclusion of images, and the article's overall NPOV status. Responses should go in the "Request for comment" section of the talk page, covering the following points:

• The 909: Does the section titled "The 909" belong in this article? Some editors say it's important to discuss negative aspects of California's Inland Empire, where UCR is located. Others think the section focuses on inappropriate stereotypes and/or is irrelevant to the article's subject. A larger issue is, how much should a university article discuss its surrounding community?
• Air pollution: How much should the article discuss Riverside's pollution problems, if at all? Does this subject merit its own section? Should the section title describe pollution as "severe", "hazardous" or neither?
• Images: Should the article display images of construction on campus, or do they give an unwarranted negative impression of the school? For a while, Image:ucrcampus.jpg, which has been called the "valley of dirt photo",[1] was displayed. A replacement, Image:Commexp.jpg, has been suggested, but not agreed upon.
• Overall NPOV status: There are many disputes over wording, possible undue weight and alleged original research. We might need feedback on better ways to phrase many parts of this article. (errors fixed 04:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

Any thoughts? szyslak (t, c, e) 09:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that at this point an ArbCom might be the only option. Danny Lilithborne 09:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is done, I think the main issue in contention here is POV. Other issues like incivility, sockpuppetry, etc. -- while important -- are relatively minor. starkt 11:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to another article content RFC, however I don't think the issue of whether we do one or not has any bearing on the second RFARB, which will be entirely focused on user conduct violations and not article content disputes.--Amerique 04:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. RFC will deal with the content issues, while RFAr, if necessary, will deal with user conduct. szyslak (t, c, e) 05:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

For better or for worse, I've posted the article RFC, so it's now live. I've directed responses to the section #Request for comment. szyslak (t, c, e) 05:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Formal Mediation?

Would either UCRGrad or Insert-Belltower be interested in discussing editing conflicts to the point of resolving them in WP:Mediation? This seems to be the only step that hasn't been tried, and if good faith efforts are made, could prevent further steps in WP:DR.--Amerique 22:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not accept mediation.Insert-Belltower 14:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Page Protected: Now Let's Discuss Changes

Since the page is protected, let's discuss the changes/deletions that have been proposed. Please. I am trying to be a reasonable person and I hope that you all will be to. UCRGrad 00:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts.

1.) Let's get rid of the ridiculous 909 Stigma. The article you referenced fails to provide the connection between the 909 Stigma and, in your own words, how the stigma mentally affects UCR students. That assertion is original research at best. And keep in mind that I'm saying this even when I stipulate that the article is verifiable. However, I also question the overall credibility of the OC Register article as it fails to give any concrete information about the 909 stigma, other than that apparently, people in the Orange County love to make fun of Riverside. Wow. [Teknosoul02]

That particular article is on the level of a gossip column. Definitely not stuff to repeat in an encyclopedia. -- Anonymous 22:45, 20 August 2006 (PDT)

I agree. 909 affects more than just UCR. Besides, when most folks think of Riverside they think of the Mission Inn, not the phone code. 909 is really POV! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anonymous and GeorgeLouis. starkt 10:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

2.) "UCR's graduate programs (including those in engineering, business, biological sciences, computer science, mathematics, English, and political science) are not top ranked in the US News and World Report's 2007 Best Graduate Schools; although the University is listed in the catalog as offering these programs." This is nitpicking perhaps on my part, but what is the definition of "top ranked". Top 50? Top 25? Top 10? [Teknosoul02]

I've seen a plot of rankings vs. faculty size for public colleges of engineering. The UC campuses, except for Davis, were at the top of their size category, and that includes UCR. The plot was done by UCR professor Mark Matsumoto, who I'm sure would be willing to share it. I suspect that you'll find a similar distribution in other disciplines -- Anonymous 22:50, 20 August 2006

Only is always a suspect word. Professional editors seldom use it. GeorgeLouis 07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the U.S. News graduate program rankings a few times over the years. U.S. News seems to rank -- at most -- what it considers the top 25 schools for each discipline. So, for all we know, UC Riverside's programs could, by U.S. News standards, consistently rank in the top 30 in the nation without U.S. News letting us know about it. Without more information on graduate program rankings (including rankings by organizations other than U.S. News), there should be no statement at all about how highly rated UCR graduate programs are. Saying that they are not ranked high enough to be listed by U.S. News and World Report (without noting that U.S. News and World Report only lists programs in the top 25, and that all UCR graduate programs might be ranked as high as 26th best in the nation) is POV -- negative POV. starkt 10:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

3.) " A large percentage of incoming freshmen arrive with inadequate preparation for college-level math and English— 70% of entering students are not ready for calculus (requiring remedial coursework in pre-calculus), and 50-60% are not able to read and write at what the University of California considers the college-level (requiring remediation in English)[6][7]."

This is one of the most misleading statements in this wiki entry, especially in regards to "remedial" math. I read the referenced article myself, and noted that the article specifically states that although 70 percent of students do place below calculus, it NEVER stated that pre-calclus was "remedial coursework". In fact, the EXACT statement is this: "further, UCR's math department is no longer offering a Math 3 (intermediate algebra) class since it was considered a remedial course, which will force underprepared students into pre-calculus class and trigger massive failures." One member expressed concern that students' early failures in mathematics impacts their ability to go into math, engineering, or science fields later on, forcing a disproportionate amount of students into the social sciences." This article made it clear that remedial math was referring to intermediate algebra and not pre calculus. [Teknosoul02]

Instead of using words like large and small, just give the actual figures and let the reader decide if they are large or small. This is basic copy-editing. GeorgeLouis 07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, a large percentage of students needing remedial work in a public university is not something that is worth mentioning unless you are trying to introduce POV and make the school look bad. Private schools are not obligated to serve and educate the students of the states in which they are located. They can be as picky as they want. Public universities, supported by public tax dollars, are supposed to do more. Under the California Master Plan for Higher Education, UC is obligated to enroll the top 12.5% of California high school graduates -- regardless of how well those high school graduates are prepared for college. Our high schools have been doing a less than fantastic job of educating students. In fact, many high schools simply promote failing students to the next grade ("social promotion") and allow them to graduate with eighth grade math and English skills. Add to that the fact that UC has taken steps, first, to enroll underrepresented minorities -- many of whom have gone to inadequate inner city and rural grammar and high schools -- and second (after blatant racial preferences were thrown out), students who have overcome "adversity" (first or second generation immigrants, low family income, first in family to attend college, etc. -- something of an attempt by UC to do an "end-run" around Prop. 209) Is it any wonder, then, that quite a few students would need remedial work? Especially at UC Riverside, which serves as a backup school for applicants to the more sought-after campuses in the UC system? Even when high schools were better than they are now, and UC wasn't making efforts to reach out to disadvantaged students the way it is doing now, lots of my UC Berkeley classmates (who were middle-class kids; wealthier kids went to schools like Stanford) had to take Subject A English. And, because you could get into UC at that time with only algebra and plane geometry under your belt, a goodly percentage of my classmates weren't prepared to take calculus. Long story short: Harping on remedial work in the UCR article is POV -- negative POV. I would also note that private universities like Harvard and Stanford -- which can and do use affirmative action in admissions -- often admit under-represented minorities with SAT scores well below average. How they deal with these students -- through remedial work, or by tracking them into less demanding courses, or by inflating grades -- is an open question. When people talk about "standards" in our colleges and universities nowadays, they are talking about something quite different than what was talked about before 1965. In the good old days, all students were more likely to be required to pass college-level math and science courses, advanced foreign language courses, and even take four years of P.E., before being given a degree. There were few if any programs that weren't traditional academic disciplines -- no women's studies, ethnic studies, etc.. There was less grade inflation. Even a "C" was something you had to work for. Then the student rebellion of the 1960s took place, professors and administrators caved in to student demands, and people like me now regard college degrees with quite a bit of skepticism no matter what schools are issuing those degrees. starkt 10:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

4.) "although UCR is only one of four UCs..." Again, this is POV. Considering there are NINE UC campuses serving undergraduate students in California, "only" is filler at best and pushes a negative impression of the school. Teknosoul02 01:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other issues we need to discuss, but these for me stand out the most. Teknosoul02 01:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are my recommendations: Remove all POV material. That includes 1) irrelevant statements clearly intended to give one a positive or negative impression of UCR; 2) true and relevant statements that are not placed in context, with the lack of context leading one to form a positive or negative impression of UCR that one would not have otherwise formed; 3) the omission of facts that would tend to mitigate other included facts that give one a positive or negative impression of UCR.

1.) Irrelevant statements clearly intended to give one a positive or negative impression of UCR. Examples would include any comparisons of UCR to other UC campuses that would lead one to form a positive or negative impression of UCR. They are irrelevant because the article is about UCR in relation to other colleges and universities in general, not UCR in relation to other UC campuses.

2.) True and relevant statements that are not placed in context, with the lack of context leading one to form a positive or negative impression of UCR that one would not have otherwise formed. An example would be UCR's low alumni contribution rate (without the contextual information that public universities in general suffer from low alumni contributions -- most likely due to the perception that such universities are already sufficiently supported by tax dollars.) In situations where the inclusion of contextual information would offset facts that lead one to form a positive or negative impression of UCR, both the facts and the mitigating material should probably be removed as irrelevant. In other words, the combination of "low alumni contribution rate" with "low alumni contributions to this kind of university are common nationwide" results in a big "So what? Why even bring this subject up in the first place?" [starkt]

But the low alumi giving rate is the LOWEST in the Nation amoung national universities. Isn't that fact worth mentioning by itself? Why do we need a context for this? And I already accepted the compromise by adding the giving rates of two other UC schools. Why do we need to sugar-coat data.Insert-Belltower 14:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying that the giving rate is the lowest in the nation among national universities" serves what purpose, exactly? "National universities" -- depending on who is counting -- are the top 50 - 250 universities in the nation, out of over a thousand universities. And I noticed when I was editing the section on alumni giving that the statement about low alumni contributions wasn't even made in the context of national universities, but in a statement similar to the following: "UCR's alumni contribution rate is in the bottom 20 universities in the nation." (See UCR "history".) Either way, I don't see that such information is relevant. Given that public universities in general have low alumni contribution rates, UCR's rate says nothing about how graduates feel about the quality of their education. UC Berkeley graduates -- I think it is safe to say -- are very pleased with the quality of the education they received. But their rate of contribution to their prestigious alma mater is low. If we were talking about a private university or college that was more dependent on alumni contributions, the alumni contribution rate might be more relevant both in terms of alumni satisfaction with the education received and the ability of graduates to make enough money to contribute significantly to their alma mater. But we are not talking about a private school. We are talking about a tax-payer supported state university. starkt 10:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting in the alumi giving rate is not intended to be a reflection of how pleased graduates are with their education. A context was already provided that mentioned that public universities have low giving rates.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Insert-Belltower (talk • contribs)

If nothing else, the statement in the article needs to reflect that UCR has the lowest rate of any USN&WR "National University." A quick glance at the figures from Voluntary Support of Education FY2005 statistics show several universities with lower alumni participation rates. Those figures have UCR's Alumni Participation Rate at 5.4% and several universities have lower rates. Interestingly, UCSC has only a 5.6% rate. According to these data, the UC system has an average rate of 9.8%. UCSF is the only real outlier with a rate of 19.7% with the rest all in the single digits. In other words, UCR's rate of giving does appear to be the lowest in the system but not by much. And it's *certainly* not the lowest in the nation.

By the way, has anyone checked this particular stat in the newly-released 2007 USN&WR stats? I haven't. --ElKevbo 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I will make the argument since the giving rate is the lowest in the nation it should be included because it is a VERY unique fact about UCR. We should leave the readers of the article to draw their own conclusions-- it is our job to write an encyclopedic article that reflects the truth. Anyways, I'm sure that IF the giving rate was 95%, no one here would say it's irrelevant because its not preceived as a "negative" statistic.Insert-Belltower 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

3.) The omission of facts that would tend to mitigate other included facts that give one a positive or negative impression of UCR. For example, under "Community", we hear about smog and the Inland Empire's "trailer trash" denizens, but do not hear about the Temecula Wine Country, Palm Springs, the Mission Inn, etc. [starkt]

You are welcome to mention those things, although Palm Springs is not really part of the Inland Empire and it is some distance away.Insert-Belltower 14:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, material that is sourced should be clearly and unambiguously supported by those sources. And there is no excuse for UCRGrad/Insert-Belltower's removal of the information I included to the effect that the University of California admits the top 12.5% of California high school graduates per the requirements of the California Master Plan for Higher Education. starkt 08:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the statement about the omissions of positive relevant data about the Riverside area. There are some very upscale housing districts located in Riverside (I think the district was called Orange Crest), which is filled with beautiful Mc Mansions virtually indistinguishable from Orange County sprawl. The adjacent city of Corona, also located in Riverside County, has seen some amazing growth over the last few years. Many OC working professionals have bought property there. College Watch 20:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on UCR should stick to UCR. Refer to Riverside, the Mission Inn, etc. by links. GeorgeLouis 07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the article should contain relevant information about the community, the environment and the student population. While the main focus should be on the campus itself, a university is never in a vacuum and it is not an isolated island in the middle of Lake Michigan. Student atttending Riverside drive on Riverside roads, go to stores in Riverside and breathe the Riverside air. Thus, you cannot separate the community from the campus.Insert-Belltower 15:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a university is not in a vacuum. But someone who wants to learn about the surrounding community need do nothing else but click on links, like Riverside, California, Inland Empire (California), and Category:Riverside County, California. Depending on what someone's looking for, even California and United States might be useful. That's why Wikipedia articles have external links. I actually wouldn't mind something similar to the "909" section appearing in the Inland Empire article. Or better yet, it could go in Area code 909. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Riverside, fine, although Szyslak has already pointed out that one could simply go to the Riverside articles which already have been linked. However, Riverside and Riverside County are two vastly different beasts, as someone has already alluded to awhile back. While a student may be using Riverside roads and what not, I hardly doubt they're running all over Riverside county. And yet, crime statistics from the entire county were included for no reason. Oh, and by the way, has anyone noticed how since UCRGrad said he was up for discussion, he hasn't been around to actually discuss anything? --WHSTalk 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

So now this page is protected. If nothing else, that should give us the impetus to come to an agreement on the issues that have divided us. The way things are going at the moment, the page could well remain protected for weeks or even months, while our disputes remain unresolved. Who wants that to happen?

Regardless of the merits of one side or the other, endless reverting is not the way to solve our problems. Personally, I strive to avoid reverts as much as possible; in fact, I've chosen to follow the one-revert rule and encourage other editors to do the same. My own edits to this article have focused on finding new ways to approach issues. I've abstained from removing or re-adding the same old chunks of text; the same few editors do enough edit warring, so I don't need to add to it. It needs to stop.

That leads me to a related point: Editors need to stop taking absolutely inflexible positions. I hear far too many editors saying things like "If you delete/re-add such and such passage, I'll automatically revert you". Let's all try to be a little more flexible. Let's all open our minds to accept other positions. This doesn't mean we should all start supporting someone else's biased editing. Instead of the same old versions that inevitably end up reverted, let's find other solutions, other ways to phrase this article's content. Let's all be a little more creative; it can't just be a matter of "my version versus your version".

Come on, let's end this long, pointless, contentious debate once and for all. We're all intelligent adults here. We can find a solution. If not, the dispute could end up being solved by the arbitration committee. While that could very well become necessary, nobody wants that. So let's find other solutions fast, or someone will find solutions for us. szyslak (t, c, e) 01:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inflexible on this point -- POV material is out. That is Wikipedia's policy, not mine. It is a policy I have to follow when I'm editing other articles. I'm not going to make an exception for UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower. And it appears that you have misunderstood my stance regarding reversions. I have promised to revert any unjustified reversions of my work (including my removal of POV material.) I have not simply said that I'll revert things I don't like. Again, I am only doing this because Wikipedia is not enforcing its own rule against POV material. starkt 08:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course POV material doesn't belong in this article. That's what led us to this point in the first place: a dispute over the article's NPOV status. I know you're editing in good faith. However, repeated reverts are disruptive no matter what your purpose is. That being said, you're not anywhere near the worse "revert warrior" on this page. szyslak (t, c, e) 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess if one holds that repeated reversions are never justified (even when dealing with a couple of repeat reverters), then it's probably just as well that the page has been protected for the time being. starkt 10:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected-909 article should be removed from the article

I am in favor of removing the 909 article. The area code, and its meaning, really do not have anything to do with the University. In fact UCR is no longer 909, it is 951. In addition to the current stigma, it is based mostly on rumor-just as everywhere else. There are some very high income individuals, real estate, and districts in riverside. For example, there is plenty of undesirable places in the nations most affluent area codes. Take 310, for instance. While Malibu, Beverly Hills and Pacific Palisades usually come to mind, the 310 area code ALSO covers some of the nations worst crime, housing projects and ghettos such Compton, Hawthorne and Inglewood- all located in 310. College Watch 01:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with College Watch. starkt 08:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with College Watch and Starkt. GeorgeLouis 07:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with College Watch, Starkt and GeorgeLouis.Insert-Belltower 23:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above users. 66.214.118.69 05:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. As szyslak has already pointed out on this page, admins do not enter into issues about which is the "right" version of an article when it is protected; protection is not an endorsement of the current version, but simply a step to halt edit warring. The version that is protected is explicitly not endorsed.

Protected pages are not reverted except in extreme cases, of which this is not one. Even if I agreed with College Watch, I would not take this step, which would mean involving myself in the merits of the content dispute. I expect that every other admin would say the same thing. Metamagician3000 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay.Insert-Belltower 02:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The university and its community

Many of this article's disputes center on how much this article should discuss the surrounding community. Examples include the hate crime section, the on-again, off-again "909 stigma" section and the discussions of air pollution. I've reviewed all the current featured articles about universities: Cornell University, Duke University, Michigan State University and University of Michigan. (Indian Institutes of Technology is also a featured article, but it's about a university system rather than a single school, akin to the article University of California.) None of the university FAs say much about their surrounding community, and what they do say directly relates to student life. The Michigan State article says more about its community than the other articles. For what it's worth, here's the introduction to the "Student life" section of the article:

“ East Lansing is very much a college town, with 58.6% of the population between the ages of 18 and 24. President John A. Hannah's push to expand in the 1950s and 1960s resulted in the largest residence hall system in the United States. 16,000 students live in MSU's 23 undergraduate halls, one graduate hall, and three apartment villages. Each residence hall has its own hall government, with representatives in the Residence Halls Association (RHA). Yet despite the size and extent of on-campus housing, 58% of students live off-campus, mostly in the "student ghettos" of East Lansing. One of these student-dominated neighborhoods is "Cedar Village". The city since has declared Cedar Village "blighted", and proposed to redevelop the 35 acre (14 ha) site as a complex of upscale condominiums and retail stores called East Village. Several fraternities in the affected area have mounted a campaign against the redevelopment plan. As of 2006, the plan remains at a stalemate. ”

Note that the Michigan university articles don't say things like "Michigan is located in the Rust Belt, a region of the United States characterized by post-industrial blight, high unemployment and frequent winter snowstorms". If it's so important to document everything that happens in the surrounding community, why are the pages I cited featured articles? szyslak (t, c, e) 03:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The UCR article has NO statement that says "UC Riverside is in California, a state governed by the Arnold the Terminator." I think that talking about the whole state of Michigan or California would be taking it a bit too far- but the city were the university if located is relevant. For exampel,e it would be worth saying that Ann Arbor has XYZ or nearby Ypsilanti has a high crime rate, etc.Insert-Belltower 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it would be any more relevant than the Berkeley article discussing the gangs in nearby Oakland, Emeryville and even Berkeley itself. The UM article mentions that some students live in Ypsilanti, and I'm sure those who want to know about how life is there can click on the link to Ypsilanti, Michigan. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Szyslak. Well said. starkt 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good point raised by Szysalk. The negative offenders such as UCRGrad are using the community in a negative light to hurt the University. There is no talk of UCLA's (or UC Berkeley for that matter) problems of crime, ludicrous rental costs, homeless problems, and severe traffic congestion. College Watch 09:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Szyslak as well. I've actually been thinking about this for some time. Whenever the article gets unlocked, I'd like to use one of those featured articles as a template of sorts to base the UCR article off of, if that's at all possible. --WHSTalk 22:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for that. There's also a semi-standard layout for such articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, which this article widely strays from.

I have looked at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities template. It is excellent. The question is, who wants to write the draft of a UCR article using the Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities template? Sorry, I don't have the time myself although I can edit the work of the lead author. How can that be accomplished without the vandalism we have seen here? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Following a template sounds like a good idea. starkt 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, who here is interested in joining a WikiProject on the University of California? Many of the articles need work and could use attention from a collaborative effort; they're full of stereotypes, "list of jokes" and other silliness. Plus I think Wikipedia deserves at least one featured article on a UC school. If everyone's receptive to the idea, I'll go ahead and create the WikiProject. szyslak (t, c, e) 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

While I wouldn't have too much to offer outside of some knowledge of three or so campuses, I'd be happy to join such a WikiProject. --WHSTalk 00:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested. starkt 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm down, but plan to have my hands full running the next Request for Arbitration under WP:DR against UCRG within a week or so, which would occupy most of my time on WP for weeks if accepted. This RFARB will be primarily focused on UCRG's conduct, but will also involve IB to the extent these users have supported the other's conduct violations. There are already two requests for comment on UCRG and IB's conduct, currently located 13 and 14 down on this page here:[2]. I'd appreciate all who are interested review the evidence currently compiled there on both users and develop a statement for the Arbitration Committee. I anticipate having my statement ready by this weekend, and would like to file the request by next Monday.

Also, if you don't already know, I was the initatior of a failed RFARB against UCRG a few months ago. I saved a copy of the text with the arbitrator's decisions on a user subpage here: [3]. Please consider what the arbitrators said in this case as you write your statements. Thank you,--Amerique 20:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

page protection

The page was protected to slow down the edit war. If people think it is unlikely to break out agiain I will remove the protection.Geni 00:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It'll definitely break out again if the page is unprotected. I'd keep it on, at least until disputes between users are settled. --WHSTalk 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

From my limited experience with this page, I think page protection should stay on for now. Metamagician3000 00:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep it protected, per WHS and Metamagician. Right now this shows no signs of working itself out. szyslak (t, c, e) 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep it protected, but how about getting rid of the 909 material while it is protected, as well as the only wordage and other obvious POV material? How could that be done? GeorgeLouis 07:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, both the 909 article AND the contested 'Incidents of Intolerance and Discrimination', should be removed from the protected article until those issues get sorted out. College Watch 07:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Protection policy, protection is not an endorsement of the current version. A protected page shouldn't be reverted except in cases of vandalism or other extreme cases. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay protected. I'm glad to see a lot of neutral and accurate statements made about the school, it used to be pretty terrible. Thanks to everyone who did a a great job. Now that things are calm and constructive, I would like to try to help you guys with this. 66.214.118.69 05:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please respond to the request for comment on WP:RFC/SOC in the sections below:

I'm impressed at how many users are offering valuable feedback on this RFC. My only concern is that it's starting to look like a poll, though I'm sure the participants don't intend it that way. I encourage threaded discussion in this RFC section, just like any other talk page section. szyslak (t, c, e) 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The "909"

Does the section titled "The 909" belong in this article? Some editors say it's important to discuss negative aspects of California's Inland Empire, where UCR is located. Others think the section focuses on inappropriate stereotypes and/or is irrelevant to the article's subject. A larger issue is, how much should a university article discuss its surrounding community?

• Dump it or move to another article. How does this affect the University? If it does, say so: "Because of XYZ the campus is socially isolated from the surrounding communities" or "Becuse many students come from the surrounding area, which is economically depressed, thus XYZ." Otherewise, no. Herostratus 05:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove it, that information should be in the article on the city (if it is not already), not the university, though it needs to be written in a more encyclopedic tone. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove All arguments to keep thus far have been ridiculous. The sources cited have been two local newspapers (one of which is pretty much a rag) and UrbanDictionary. Danny Lilithborne 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove It's irrelevant and POV through undue weight. There's a Riverside article for a reason. Sxeptomaniac 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove For the reasons given above. starkt 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove For all the above reasons. 66.214.118.69 23:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Air pollution

How much should the article discuss Riverside's pollution problems, if at all? Does this subject merit its own section? Should the section title describe pollution as "severe", "hazardous" or neither?

• Would it not be possible to say something along the lines of: "The Universtity is located in the XYZ region, which is economically depressed and smoggy, but which also features ABC and DEF." I mean, isn't there anything nice to say about Riverside and the Inland Empire? It is in California, after all; at least the climate must be nice. Is it really that much worse than Duluth or Jackson, Mississipi? Herostratus 06:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove it, for the same reason I gave above. Herostratus is correct, of course, that the article could mention that the University is located in a region that has problems with crime, is economically depressed, and is smoggy, provided that a reliable source is cited. But extensive commentary on those subjects in this article is inappropriate per undue weight. I personally find it disgusting that people from the richest county in the United States feel it necessary to mock their economically depressed neighbor like this, but that's neither here nor there. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rephrase per Hemostratus. Danny Lilithborne 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Also irrelevant, and an entire paragraph is certainly undue weight. Sxeptomaniac 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. There is no indication in Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities that very much attention should be given to the milieu in which the school is situated and of which it is a part. There is already a smog section in Riverside, California, as well as a crime section. Anybody reading about UCR can easily click to find out more about Riverside. You don't see any discussion of air pollution in the articles on California Baptist University, La Sierra University or Riverside Community College, nor, to switch the comparison a bit, of crime and teeming city streets under City College of New York. Sincerely, and in all good faith, GeorgeLouis 23:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the smog statistics into a new section dealing with the Air Pollution Research Center, and I hope we can leave it there for a while just to see if we like it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• The article mentions that the area's pollution harmed enrollment in the 1970s. That's a good example of an appropriate place to mention outside factors in a university article. I support mentioning air pollution in context, but there shouldn't be a whole section of the article devoted to that issue. As others have said, that's for the Riverside/Inland Empire articles. szyslak (t, c, e) 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, per GeorgeLouis above. starkt 13:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Edit for relevance. As mentioned above, a direct impact on the university's enrollment is worth mentioning here. Some of the responses to this poll show complete unfamiliarity with California geography: not everyplace in California "must be pretty nice:" Death Valley is also in the state. Most of Riverside county is also desert. In fact Riverside and San Bernardino Counties do have a serious air pollution problem, mostly not of their own making: prevailing winds and steep mountain ranges funnel Los Angeles smog eastward. It's a serious problem, but the details are better suited to some other article. Find whererever Wikipedia describes the phenomenon best and link there. Durova 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove I do not think it's relevent to UCR's scholastic reputation. 66.214.118.69 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

Should the article display images of construction on campus, or do they give an unwarranted negative impression of the school? For a while, Image:ucrcampus.jpg, which has been called the "valley of dirt photo",[4] was displayed. A replacement, Image:Commexp.jpg, has been suggested, but not agreed upon.

• If the construction photo portrays the construction of a notable building (in the context of this university), it should be in the article. However, the dirt photo appears to be merely another attempt to portray the region in a negative light. Every university in the U.S. undergoes construction at one point or another. A picture of a mound of dirt in furtherance of that construction serves no encyclopedic purpose. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have no opinion on this. Danny Lilithborne 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove The picture doesn't show anything particularly notable.
• Remove for the reasons given above. starkt 13:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove for the above reasons, particularly what Jersyko had to say. 66.214.118.69 23:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall NPOV status

There are many disputes over wording, possible undue weight and alleged original research. We might need feedback on better ways to phrase many parts of this article.

• An idea might be to start all over again, as GeorgeLouis is trying to do. Danny Lilithborne 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Just get rid of the POV material. I've already done that a few times, but my edits were reverted. starkt 13:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Facts that redound to the DIScredit of the university are not POV, in my humble opinion. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That seems odd. Are you saying that no entry, if factual, which reflects poorly on the University can be biased? Hmmmm. Anyway, look. Valid and notable negative info about a college is OK, but let's not go overboard. Would the world be better of if the university did not exist? I mean, the assumption for any university ought to be that, all things considered, it's a good thing, beneficial to society. Right? And all colleges and universities, without exception, could be better than they are. So? Let's not get overly focus on that. Herostratus 05:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Facts like ranking UCR's low ranking among UC schools in various areas? How are such facts relevant to assessing UC as a university in relation to other universities and colleges in general? They are not relevant. Note that I have kept in relevant facts, like Princeton Review's criticism that UCR has too many TA's and professors are scarce. Also, the endless detail about UCR's rankings and admissions process are themselves POV in the sense that they create an obsessive focus on selectivity and rankings. I doubt that Harvard's article goes into such detail. If people here want to damn UCR in these areas, they might employ a little subtlety. I'm thinking of the saying "Damned with faint praise". I can't believe other editors here are going along with a lot of the negative POV, especially the "other UC campus" comparisons. And going along with removing my non-POV factual information about UC's admissions policies under the California Master Plan for Higher Education. I'm not going to participate in formal complaints against UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower if you guys are going to promote their POV agenda. starkt 05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, I felt the same way a month ago when I stopped looking at/working on this article. I would rather have facts from unbiased and educational sources, than the personal, biased opinions of incorrect or outdated sources. I don't think any direct OR indirect statements should be made about the school at all, and that information should be given so that the reader can easily find the information and read up on it. I appreciate the work that a lot of other people have done to remove tons of NPOV indirect statements/wording in this article and I hope that you stay to work on the article with us. We need all the help we can get and I think this article is beginning to look very good, in terms of facts and being written in an impartial tone. And, off the record, my personal belief is that people give UCR a hard time because of its location. If it was near a beach like the others (sans Merced... which, ironically, also gets poked fun of) and nothing else about the school changed, I gaurantee you these archives would not exist. And that, I think, is rather petty and sad. Again, that is my personal opinion. 66.214.118.69 05:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, about Harvard, there IS a section in the Harvard article dealing with criticisms of that school. It is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University#Views_of_Harvard. The Discussion about this section is rather thorough at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_1#Criticism_of_Harvard , and it reads much like that we have seen here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a similar, thoughtful section of criticism of UCR. The trouble with the material that UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower want to keep in is that -- unlike the Harvard material -- it is presented with little or no context, as a series of potshots. For example, I could go with something along the lines of the following: "UC Riverside is a campus of the world renowned University of California system (this follows the Harvard template which begins by building the school up as, arguably, the oldest, richest and most famous seat of learning in the country.) UCR follows the University of California's rigorous admissions standards, admitting only the top 12.5% of California high school graduates or the top 4% of any high school class in the state. Its graduate programs are of high caliber, along with all other graduate programs at UC. It is ranked 88th among "national universerities" by U.S. News, etc., etc. (other positive aspects)....However, some criticize UC Riverside as something of a "poor relation" among UC campuses. While campuses at Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Diego get many more applicants than available places for admission, UCR rarely -- if ever -- has more applicants than admissions slots, so it is less selective than other UC schools. Applicants who fail to get into the more popular UC campuses are often "redirected" to UC Riverside. UC Riverside is higher than average among UC schools in the percentage of students who need remedial work...(other negative information.) However, (introducing some counterbalancing positive information) it may well be that the relative lack of cut-throat competition at UC Riverside allows for a less stressful and more productive learning experience for undergraduates. A notable fact about UCR is that it has an unusually high percentage of economically disadvantaged students (Pell Grant recipients) who manage to graduate, according to "Washington Monthly"'s college guide. It also has a high percentage of undergraduates who go on to earn Ph.D's. One advantage of being a "lesser" UC campus, in light of California's prohibition of affirmative action in admissions, is a more diverse student body. And few would deny that UC Riverside, because it is less selective than other UC campuses, provides an opportunity that other campuses do not provide to students who are somewhat marginal and looking for an opportunity to redeem themselves. On the other hand (close with some sharp criticism of the school), Princeton Review has criticized UC Riverside for having too many teaching assistants while "professors are scarce" in undergraduate classrooms. However (context), it should be kept in mind that this problem is quite common in both public and private research universities (including the most prestigious ones.) Last, alumni contributions at UCR are very low. Although, again, public universities in general tend to have low alumni contribution rates." Note that the material presented here, as with the Harvard piece, is presented as a kind of essay, with the actual statistics not present (they can be referenced, however.) starkt 10:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see you have put a lot of thought into this. I agree that a well-balanced, essay-type article mighg be more valuable than a mere collection of facts. What you have written above DOES make sense of some of the seemingly disconnected points that we use in the UCR piece. Yet I would NOT leave the statistics out of the essay — you always need pertinent facts immediately at hand to back up your generalities, or the reader is not going to believe you.

Why not create a Sandbox of your own to try out some of your ideas before posting them? Just stick the reference here and the other editors can jump in with amendments. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, putting all the stats in -- but in context -- is fine. I think I'll leave it to other editors to do this, though. Feel free to quote what I've written above verbatim, or to make changes as you see fit. starkt 06:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk archives

I just posted a message on the the Hurricane Katrina talk page. It has 14 archives, almost as many as this talk page. Yep, the talk page for a college in California is as long as the talk page for one of the deadliest national disasters and most important news events in U.S. history. Who says we're not engaging in enough discussion? szyslak (t, c, e) 17:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk about Tidal Wave 2, smog in Riverside, and the US News rankings. Now those are some disasters, working on this article has been like conducting a rescue operation in The Perfect Storm.--Amerique 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

IB will continue working on this article until he/she dies- which will hopefully be about 60-70 years from now. Insert-Belltower 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

List of departments?

In principle, I have no beef about removing the list of departments and interdisciplinary majors, since they are easily obtained from the UCR Web site, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities advises "Then, in bullet point form, list the schools, colleges, etc. of this university. If appropriate, also list the faculties and departments at the university." This list is not really "redundant," since not too many of the departments are mentioned elsewhere in the article. Do you mean rather that they are "supefluous"? I might agree with you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 05:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed them, and I wrote that they were superfluous in my edit summary, not redundant. As you mentioned, it's entirely possible to obtain a list from the UCR website and a simple listing of every single department in the school isn't exactly informative. If others think that it should be kept in, I think that we should at least put it in columns so there's not so much blank space in the article. --WHSTalk 06:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with keeping the material in, in columns. It's nice to have it pop right out at you that UCR has a "Marxist Studies" program. Who would have thought? starkt 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest writing up the Marxist Studies program as a paragraph and putting it in the same section as the Native American Studies program. GeorgeLouis 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Marxist Studies, to my knowledge, is only a minor undergraduate program at UCR that does not have a dedicated research center or departmental status attached. I don't think it needs to be included, but I think UCR's other academic and local and international "diversity" initiatives should be written up, especially Hispanic Studies and the UC MEXUS project.--Amerique 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Un-Protected

Well, I see that we can edit the article again. I edited the introduction, which implied that UCR is meant primarily to serve local students. Not true. Like other UCs, it enrolls students from all over the world and the United States, in addition to students from throughout California.

I removed the negative POV under "Freshman admissions", reinserted my past information (with sources) on UC's admission policy as determined by the California Master Plan for Higher Education (and an amendment specifying that the top 4% of each California high school class is qualified for admission.) I added an explanation of comprehensive review in light of the university's policy of redirecting students to various campuses.

I removed the entire section on crime -- it was pure negative POV.

I shortened the section on smog. More would be negative POV.

I got rid of negative POV in the "rankings" section, and elaborated on the Atlantic Monthly ratings (per my previous edits.)

Needless to say, reverting my edits will be met with a reversion in turn. starkt 14:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this a fair policy and I think you hovering around WP:OWN. Insert-Belltower 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to agree with I-B, but this is the kind of behavior that is leading people to consider ArbCom intervention. Danny Lilithborne 19:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that... --ElKevbo 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo, Danny Lilithborne and I-B. Edit warring is always harmful, no matter what side you're on. So is promising to edit war. szyslak (t, c, e) 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. So just let UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower own the article because any strong action taken against them (which, in my case, merely amounts to reverting their unjustified reversions of my edits to remove their POV -- POV that is contrary to Wikipedia policy) is "wrong". As I said in the section "Overall NPOV Status", I'm not going to participate in complaints against UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower if you editors who complain endlessly about their POV criticize me for actually doing something about it: removing and keeping out the POV that they have tried to keep in the article. starkt 04:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Gentlepeople — the way to counter the negative stuff is to put in positive stuff. Find something you LIKE about UCR and write up a piece about it (with sources), then put it in the proper location within the article. Or start an entirely new Page about it, if you are so moved. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The way to remove POV material is to simply remove it. I would be removing "UCR is a FANTASTIC campus of the great University of California" if such a statement appeared in the article. I don't remove information just because it is negative. For example, I didn't remove Princeton Review's criticisms about too many TAs and professors being scarce. I remove claims that are POV and shouldn't have been put in the article in the first place. For example, unflattering comparisons of UCR to other UC campuses when the article is supposed to talk about UCR in relation to other colleges and universities in general. I'm not going to continue the "good fight" against UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower if you guys aren't going to be serious about taking them on. You might breathe a sigh of relief if I no longer participate as an editor. Fine, I hope you enjoy the resulting POV article. starkt 04:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Admissions Information

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/freshman/scholarship_reqs.html

The above link contains current admission requirements for all UC schools. These are mandatory requirements. If you have any questions about this process, feel free to let me know, I know a lot about it. For now I am replacing this updated link from what I feel is an accurate source with the admissions information from the Berkeley website because it is not accurate. This is the only thing I have changed, besides removing someone's derogatory statement about "bitches"... I feel that both changes were reasonable ones. 66.214.118.69 23:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Remedial" coursework

I know I already talked about it, but it's worth repeating:

"A large percentage of incoming freshmen arrive with inadequate preparation for college-level math and English— 70% of entering students are not ready for calculus (requiring remedial coursework in pre-calculus), and 50-60% are not able to read and write at what the University of California considers the college-level (requiring remediation in English)[6][7]."

This is one of the most misleading statements in this wiki entry, especially in regards to "remedial" math. I read the referenced article myself, and noted that the article specifically states that although 70 percent of students do place below calculus, it NEVER stated that pre-calclus was "remedial coursework". In fact, the EXACT statement is this: "further, UCR's math department is no longer offering a Math 3 (intermediate algebra) class since it was considered a remedial course, which will force underprepared students into pre-calculus class and trigger massive failures." One member expressed concern that students' early failures in mathematics impacts their ability to go into math, engineering, or science fields later on, forcing a disproportionate amount of students into the social sciences." This article made it clear that remedial math was referring to intermediate algebra and not pre calculus. This section either needs to be removed or fixed so that it is more NPOV. Teknosoul02 23:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. To my understanding, UC schools do not consider pre-calculus to be a remedial course. The UC system requires one year of algebra I, algebra II and geometry. Therefore, it is these courses that are considered remedial (by definition) if a student is accepted and has to take them. Edit- and also, for anyone who needs a definition of what pre-calculus entails, it is a specific course, usually called pre-calculus or math analysis. It contains algebra III, trigonometry and beginning calculus... I'm just putting this here, so everyone knows exactly what it is and can see it is a seperate course from the others.;) 66.214.118.69 23:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Teknosoul, I made a small change to your changes. It was only because when I read it, I realized that there is no percentage in the original information that says how many students were actually in math 3, instead of any other math that is below calculus. I simply re-worded it so that there was no confusion in my mind, is all. I hope that doesn't bother anyone, it is simply for clarification purposes, since we do not know the exact numbers for each class placement. I agree with the way you made the statement more neutral.

And on another note, I think in that section, it will also be worth mentioning that there is an english exam requirement that all UCR students must get a specific score on, in order to avoid being expelled. Once I find the source for this, I will show you. But there are measures in place so that students who do not quickly reach UC level english courses are expelled. 66.214.118.69 00:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

edit again- to explain about math 3...

math IMP- the most remedial course. Basically teaches you the defintion of a number, addition, subtraction, etc. (a remedial course- no major credits)

math 3- algebra, geometry (a remedial course- no major credits)

math 5- pre-calculus (I explained this course above- not remedial, basic freshman math course)

66.214.118.69 00:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I found it! That was easier than I thought it would be.

As you can see, this is the test. http://english.ucr.edu/elwr/index.html

You have the option to pass the test before enrolling OR you have a time limit. http://english.ucr.edu/elwr/time_limit.html

As you can see, these are accurate sources. I will add this information to the freshman admissions section, since it is important to any freshman attending this school. 66.214.118.69 00:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Biomedical Sciences Program

In order to prevent an edit war before it begins... the biomedical sciences program offers classes all over campus. In the physics 2000 lecture hall, the UNLH, and several classes are held on the bottom FLOOR of the statistics building. This has been discussed, before. The statistics building has several stories, one of those stories is underground. It looks just like all the other above ground floors in the building. Insert-Belltower and UCRGrad thought it was a basement. It is clearly not a basement and using the word basment to describe it is not only false but it is just another insignificant cheap shot they insist on taking at this school, for reasons I don't understand. So if you see the word "basement", please revert it out. If I have to drive all the way out there to take pictures of the place, I will. Facts are facts, let's not start this again when the article is actually starting to look very good. Thank you. 66.214.118.69 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So the B in Stat B650 doesn't stand for Basement? Also, I believe they were referring to the medical school-specific classes.. the ones you take if you're fortunate enough to be one of the 24. Of the three classes that currently show up at http://www.classes.ucr.edu/schedule/ if you choose Biomedical Sciences, none show a location other than the Statistics building or the Biomedical Teaching Complex. Can you provide any examples of medical school classes that are not taught in those two locations? SoCalAlum 16:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter in an encyclopedia? Just wondering what the fuss is all about? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 17:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter that we get facts correct. Further, this is one of several minor facts (?) that I (and I suspect others) view as having been inserted in a subtle attempt to introduce and perpetuate a negative POV in the article. We need not only establish that it's facutally correct but also relevant to this article. --ElKevbo 18:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point, ElKevbo. It may certainly be true that there was not enough toilet tissue in the women's restroom in Blahblah building on April 3, 1952, but is it relevant? Is there a WikiP rule we can cite? GeorgeLouis 03:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your point appears to be that just because it's factually correct it doesn't need to be in the article. If that is your pont and you are applying to this particular fact, then I completely agree and have stated in the past (on multiple occassions) that this is not relevant to the article and should probably be removed. I don't think it's important to note that certain classes are taught in the lowest level of a particular building. If there were some evidence that the facilities were inadequate or otherwise noteable than that would be different. But the mere location of some classes is not noteable and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article about the school. --ElKevbo 03:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

SoCalAlum, fall 06 is the first quarter that I have ever seen which has biomed classes all located in the stats building. In all the previous quarters of the previous years, they have been in various science-oriented lecture halls and classrooms. And in my epxeriences at this school, there is a good chance that they will be in different locations in the winter quarter, as this school is in the process of building at the moment and things often got moved around when I went there, anyway. That is typical. As you know, the definition of a basement is the lowermost portion of a structure partly or completely below ground level that is used for storage. Since the bottom floor of the building is not used for storage and has classrooms, smaller lecture halls, labs, etc. and looks like the rest of the building, it is not a basement. On a side note, I agree with GeorgeLouis... if we are going to put the location of these classes, we should either put the locations of ALL classes on campus or not put them at all. That is very unecessary information to begin with, which again leads me to believe IB is doing this for the sole purpose of making UCR look bad. 1) the information is incorrect and 2) it is not needed. 66.214.118.69 20:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found the reference, so let's use it: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. That is at [[5]] . Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Campus security replacing item about discrimination and hate crimes . . .

The item that was replaced cited two faulty sources: Racism Rising in the Golden State at http://www.alternet.org/story/27461/?comments=view&cID=53268&pID=53243, which had nothing to say about UCR crime, and http://police.berkeley.edu/annual_report/2004/riverside/miscellaneous_activity.html, which cited five hate crimes in 2004 but did not note that such crimes dropped to only one in 2005 — an insignificant figure when compared to the number of alcohol offenses (50).

Links were added so readers can go to the source and get more information.

The item about the cartoon in the campus newspaper was dropped because it is too inconsequential to mention, besides being yesterday's news.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 04:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. On the issue of the newspaper cartoon, the real story is that a college newspaper posted a tasteless, bigoted cartoon. I'm sure most college papers have published at least one. It's not notable and only serves to advance the POV that UCR's community is "racist". szyslak (t, c, e) 07:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You can amend the hate crime section, but this does not seem to be valid justification for removing the entire section.Insert-Belltower 14:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reasons for the deletion are given in the first paragraph of this section. The source as checked by your well-meaning editor did not verify the fact claimed, and the passage of time has made the figure about hate crimes in 2004 irrelevant. The campus newspaper item is old news, a one-shot deal that doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. If the reader is interested in current statistics, the links are there and can be updated from year to year. Yours in good faith, GeorgeLouis 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Press-Enterprise articles

I paid for a one-month Internet subscribtion to the Riverside Press-Enterprise archives because I wanted to check some of the sources in the article. I've only used one of my 10 hits, and the sub will continue for another three weeks. If anybody wants to check an old story from the P-E, please let me know and I will try to find it for you in the archives.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Slight Changes

Hi. I'm absolutely new to this so I didn't quite know if I might've been incorrect in making a slight change. Changed Mascot : Tartan-wearing bear -to- Scotty the tartan wearing bear. And I apologize in the event I may have violated some wikipedia policy. --Atieonfire 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome. You did exactly the right thing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 05:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Freshman Admissions Section

I've been watching this article for a while, so I've finally decided to jump in on the discussion. Obviously, there are huge disputes over the neutrality of this whole article, but I'm concerned right now with the "Freshman Admissions" section. Portions of this section seem to give a negative view of UCR. I suggest that this section of the article just be totally revamped. I was taking a look at the articles of other UC's, and found that some list very little about their admissions, and some even list nothing at all about admissions. UCSC basically lists majors and minors offered, the average amount of students per college, retention rates, and ratings from various sources. UCSF lists rankings from various sources. UCM lists nothing. UCI lists mostly how to graduate from UCI and talks about majors offered. The articles I found to have the best "Admissions" sections were UCSB, UCB, UCSD, and UCLA. I suggest that one of these articles be emulated here at the UCR page. I liked the UCSB and UCSD ones the best. I offer my suggestion for a new "Admissions" section below.

"Admissions and Ratings"

"The US News ranks the University of California, Riverside as 88th of National Universities and as a "More Selective" school. The average GPA of incoming freshmen is 3.4 and the average SAT score is 1074 (This should be updated to include, or replace, with the "new" SAT scores, ALSO it should be updated and be specific as to which incoming class this applies to [eg, Fall 2005 class]). For the 2006-2007 acadmic period, UCR recived X freshmen applications. X of these applications, or 79% (may need to be updated, needs to be cited) of applicants were admitted. The admission fee is $60 and the application deadline for 2006 is November 30th. The office of admissions is located at:

XXXX Hinderaker Hall, Riverside, CA, 9250X-XXXX"

Graduate Admissions information should also be added.

I would also like to point out that the sub section of the admissions section says "Other highlights of the admissions process", but all this section lists are random statistics about the campus, all of which add to the negative tone of the article. For example:

--In fall 1999, 60 percent were not able to read and write at what the University of California considers the college level (requiring remediation in English) — vs. about 20 percent at the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses. [4]. In response to this statistic, UCR requires all of its incoming freshmen to pass the ELWR (entry-level writing requirement). More information can be found here: http://english.ucr.edu/elwr/index.html

-This part(among several other bullet points) is biased, and it is "supported" by false information. The ELWR is a requirement at ALL UC CAMPUSES. Also, the link disproves that "all of [UCR's] incoming freshmen must pass the ELWR." The link states that the ELWR can be satisfied by getting a 3, 4, or 5 on the AP English Test, 5, 6, or 7 on the IB Test, a 680 or above on the SAT II Writing Test, getting a 30 or better on the ACT, by passing the AWPE (also known as the good old Subject A Exam), or by taking a series of courses at UCR or another approved college (either during the year or over the summer). So, a student can pass the ELWR by either before coming to college through the SAT, ACT, AP, IB, or AWPE options, or as a college freshman, through classes offered at UCR and other colleges. Obviously, the ELWR requirement WAS NOT in response to that statistic, as the ELWR has been around for ages (if not ever since it was founded) in the UC System -- in fact, my sister had to take the Subject A exam before going to UCLA around 1997, and both of my parents had to take the Subject A before going to their UC schools, which was sometime in the 1960's. By taking and passing these exams, my sister and parents satisfied the ELWR, in the 1960's and 1997, which whoever created this point claims was "invented" because of UCR in 1999.

Also, this point states that 60% of UCR students could not read based on their Subject A exam results (or because they didn't satisfy incoming freshman ELWR's), as compared to 20% at Berkley and LA. However, this statistic only reflects "regular admits" in Figure 5, whereas "special admits" for UCR is almost 80%, as is UCLA. In fact, UCSD is almost 100%. (Figure 5 outlines statistics for the percentage of freshmen needing remediation in Fall 1999). It should also be noted that this cited source is about improving the preparedness of the UC System as a whole, and makes it a point to say that all UC campuses were doing poorly. Also, the source also talks about the CSU system and it's problems with remediation rates.

Hopefully my suggestion will be taken into consideration and UCR's article on Wikipedia can be presented as neutral as possible. Thanks. Woo tangent 09:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Woo! I've deleted that particular item. As for adding any further explanation, I would prefer not. As you mentioned, articles on other UC campuses don't go into so much detail. I am only one editor, but I think "lean and mean" is best. The editor who added the negative information about UCR had the right to do so, provided that the information was accurate (and remains accurate) and germane to the subject.

Please point out the false information about the other bullet points.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 12:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting that bullet point! :) I'll be looking into the other ones as well for accuracy and neutrality and I'll post again if I find anything new. Thanks. Woo tangent 02:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The freshmen admissions section doesn't necessarily portray UC Riverside in a positive light, but if the information is accurate, then it has to remain b/c at least it's relevant. However, I am curious what exactly are "special admits"? I too noticed that a substantial percentage of the "special admits" to UCLA and Berkeley required remedial work. Taking a stab at this, I would assume that special admits include: recruited athletes, famous celebrities (I believe UCLA has admitted several well known TV stars so they could be among the special admits), legacies (sons and daughters of powerful alumni), and that's about all I can think of. Teknosoul02 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That contention about UCLA would be interesting if indeed it is true. I did a quick search for UCLA and "special admits" and came up with this sentence from the Daily Bruin: "The university has 'special admits' that may constitute up to 6 percent of the total admitted students every year who do not meet the minimum eligibility criteria. Currently only about 2 percent of that permit is being used . . . " Another quick search indicates that some of the other admits might be for people of underrepresented groups who couldn't pass the entry requirements. Anyway, I agree that we should find out more about UCR's "special admits" and post the relevant figures here if we can (and if they are outside the norm for UC as a whole).

All the best, GeorgeLouis 16:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to look up some information on UCLA and "special admits" and there was a memo that mentioned that special admits (for UC schools in general) usually constitutes those from "disadvantaged backgrounds" or have special talents, but most likely fall short of meeting ordinary UC criteria. Special talents wasn't defined, but I'm pretty sure that's a catchall referring to talented athletes, musicians, celebrities, etc. As for the term "underrepresented groups", what does this refer to?

Anyway, one of the "stars" I was referring to who was recently admitted to UCLA was TV and film actress Danielle Panabaker. There's a possibility she might have been one of those special admits (being that she's a film actress and all) though there's a possibility she might've gotten in on her own merit as well. There are others I'm sure as well, but their names slipped outta my mind. In general, highly regarded colleges do give major preferences to child and teen celebrities (a lot moreso than underrepresented minorities, athletes, and even legacies). Haley Joel Osment recently enrolled in NYU, as have the Olsen twins two years ago. Kate Bosworth was accepted to Princeton but eventually declined. Emmy Rossum attends Columbia. Jonathan Taylor Thomas attended Harvard. Same with Natalie Portman and Sarah Hughes. Ivanka Trump graduated from Wharton at Penn (coincidentally also her father's alma mater so she already has two things which favored her admission to Penn). So if you want to get into the college choice of your dreams, the best shot is to become a famous celebrity when you're a child or teenager.  :) Teknosoul02 19:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

bulletpoints?

While I understand the article is in a transformative period, and is much more neutral than it used to be, I have to say the current bulletpoint organization of some of the sections gives it the feel of being an office memo or a powerpoint presentation rather than an encyclopedia article. It is a very informative presentation, but it doesn't read to me entirely like an article. Also, it seems to me that while the article has become much more neutral in tone, it has also become less organized in terms of its categorical structure, with student gov mixed in with sports, and a whole grab bag of different items listed under "academic innovations."

I have great respect for all the editors involved in rendering this artice NPOV. I am only criticizing because I would like to help get the article up to featured quality, and every college article that has attained that distinction structures information using narratives rather than bulletpoint lists, which however are clearly marked and deliniated. I will try experimenting with the article's infostructure over the next week.--Amerique 16:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that as well when I was going through the revamped version of this article. It could use some structural cleanup. --WHSTalk 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Noted Educational Features

Kinda going back to that list of majors/departments, as well as the current way its setup with the mention of Native American / Marxist /Haider programs, would anyone agree to a different article page for this sort of thing? The featured article universities (For example, Duke, Michigan State, and UMich) generally seem to follow that as a template, and I think it also helps clean up the article. --WHSTalk 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Any new page would give us just one more to protect from vandalism and POV changes. I'd say keep it the way it is, with almost everything on just this one page (except for History of the University of California, Riverside). And, speaking frankly, Duke is Duke and UCR is, well, UCR. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 02:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)