Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

I'm ready to discuss the issues about the biomed section.Insert-Belltower 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the biomed program section, the removal of the "but have not always been successful" clause is all I think it needs to be considered NPOV as well. As ElKevbo said, the information is unnecessary. No one (I think) is assuming that anyone who applies to med school from any campus anywhere will get in. You would have to, I think, be beyond naive to honestly think that. You could just as well say that not everyone who applies to med school from Berkeley or Harvard gets in; no one expects that either, the information is useless.--Amerique 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even a big fan of the entire sentence but it is informative since it deals with a unique program whose rules may conceivably only allow students to apply to particular schools. But, as stated, the final part of the sentence is completely unnecessary. --ElKevbo 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say you have a valid point if this general statement left in the section. Nevertheless, it might be worthwhile to put in a more detailed statement about Med-school success, perhaps with a reference, that incorportates percentages. Let's see what other people have to say.Insert-Belltower 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even with percentages and references, I'm still not sure it would be necessary to include such information. Afterall, this is an article about the university in general and not just the program. We don't include numbers that reflect how students in other disciplines fair in graduate school, I'm not sure what makes this particular one stand out. Still, it would be better than simply saying "not all are successful". --WHS 01:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think it would be necessary (or even possible) to include similar numbers for all academic programs. And I don't know why we would single out this one program in this manner. --ElKevbo 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are familiar with undergraduate recruitment for national universities, one of the statistics they publish is success rate of med school applicants. They realize that a significant proportion of science majors are pre-med and one of the important questions these high school applicants have is how will their school choice affect their chances of getting into med school. If you are familiar with medical school admissions, you would know that med school admission from college is the "rate limiting step" to becoming a physician. So important is this statistic that some universities have been accused of coaching their pre-med advisors to instruct weak applicants NOT to apply to med school, in order to inflate their "success rate" numbers. It's a big deal. This is why med school admissions is so important, vs. something like success rate in admission to nursing school (which you never see published). Those of you who are truly familiar with UC Riverside would also realize that the Thomas Haider program is the crown-jewel program of UC Riverside. It's something that recruitment officers are proud of mentioning, it's a feature in recruitment brochures, and it's something even non-premed students brag about when they attempt to speak highly about UC Riverside. This is why the program has so much space dedicated to it...and it's why there was a paragraph about the Thomas haider program already in the article before any of us (including me) started editing the article. I hope this helps put things into perspective. UCRGrad 01:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay if you could 1) cite the specific statistics for UCR and 2) summarize what you've just written (with sources, of course) to give context to the statistic. Otherwise it just sticks out and the lay person has no idea of its importance (as demonstrated by the current discussion). --ElKevbo 01:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ElKevbo in this case. No one is arguing against including informative content about the biomed program. The contested statement we are arguing against is not statistical and is not at all informative.--Amerique 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read a reference somewhere in one of the Oral Histories, (I forget which one now) that said, percentage-wise, UCR actually sends far more students to med schools annually through general applications than it does through the biomed program, which would not be surprising given how few seats the biomed program has available. This statement was not accompanied by any statistics, and I could not find any other information elsewhere to support it, so i decided it was not useful for this encyclopedia. But if anyone else can find some authoritative statistics that support, more or less, the statement that "UCR annually sends more (or fewer) students to med school through general applications than it does through the biomed program," that would be useful information for placing the biomed program in context of total med school applications from UCR.--Amerique 16:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oral histories are the least reliable sources and barely meet criteria for a "verifiable source" on Wikipedia (if they do at all). The only reason I don't call you on it is that I think that the history section is an important addition to the article, irrespective of how good your sources are. UCRGrad 05:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and remove the "students not selected are still eligible to apply to other medical schools" for the exact same reasons that you guys have given for why the phrase "but have not always been successful" should be removed. In both cases, these seem to be obvious statements to you guys, they are not statistical or referenced, and are what you'd expect anyway for premed applicants. Obviously, students not selected are "eligible" to apply to medical school - why wouldn't they be?? So line deleted. UCRGrad 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with this edit, as the fact that students are still eligible to apply is rather obvious and doesn't need to be stated. --WHS 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the edit.Insert-Belltower 23:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that.--Amerique 15:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Danny Lilithborne 00:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to poll all the active contributors of this article with the following (i.e. Amerique, WHS, ElKevbo, Insert-Belltower, and anybody else who seeks to edit here.) Keep in mind that everyone has a basic right to edit any article that he/she pleases, within the rules set by Wikipedia policy as well as the online community here. I'm just curious, and it would be a definite show of good faith to respond.

1) How familiar are you with UC Riverside? (i.e. extremely familiar or never-been-there)

2) What aspects/areas of UC Riverside are you familiar with?

3) Where/how have you obtained information about UC Riverside to give you such a level of familiarity?

I will begin:

1) I believe that I am extremely familiar with UC Riverside.

2) As a former student, I have first hand knowledge of the school's campus, surrounding area, beliefs/attitudes associated with the surrounding area, academics, reputation, etc. I also have a personal interest in college admissions/recruitment/etc., particularly of the California schools. As such, I am very familiar with comparative statistics among schools (particularly of my alma mater), rankings, and the areas in which schools are judged relative to one another. I regularly read scholarly articles and publications pertaining to these topics as well as issues specific to the UC system and UCR.

3) Information about UCR has been obtained through 4+ years of personal experience as a UCR student and living in Riverside County. As stated above, I frequently read or seek out publications and articles in areas related to UCR and California colleges, particular in the above areas of interest. UCRGrad 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1.) Very Familiar w/ UCR and Riverside.

2.) Ditto UCRGrad (my alma mater as well) 3.)I have first had knowledge of UCR.Although I do not live California now, I follow the news from the UC system and UCR specifically. I feel equiped to edit this article.Insert-Belltower 02:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my name being mentioned directly in UCRGrad's request for participation in his poll, I'm going to decline to participate for the following reasons:

1. Editors who were previously assumed to be affiliated with the university in one way or another have been characterized as having an "a) obvious inherent bias" and "b) obvious self-interest to promote the campus".
2. Editors who were previously assumed to not be affiliated with the university on one way or another have been characterized as not having "sufficient familiarity with the subject" and "likely making personal judgements based on their own knowledge of universities in general or other (dissimilar) UC schools".

Looking at the above two quotes, it's apparent that there's an obvious conflict of interest involved in disclosing the information requested in the poll. For this reason, and despite the fact that it may or may not be a show of good faith to respond, I personally am going to abstain from participating. Others may feel differently than I do and should feel free to respond in whatever manner they wish. --WHS 03:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WHS. Unless you demonstrate "obvious inherent bias" (e.g. "I think UCR is the best school because I go there") or "obvious self-interest to promote the campus" (e.g. "Let's delete all negative information about UCR so my future employers will not know about them), you clearly cannot be labeled as such by me or anyone else. That being said, I notice that your userpage lists you as a UCSD student. Is it safe to say that you never attended UC Riverside? UCRGrad 06:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, UCRGrad. Even if I don't demonstrate obvious bias or self interest, I will point out that in the past, anonymous editors have been called out simply due to the fact that they were posting from a Riverside IP address. Also, even though my userpage does say I attend UCSD, it would be difficult to determine the extent of my familiarity with UCR based only off of that. For all anyone knows, I could have done my undergraduate studies at UCR, or I could have transferred here from the university, or I may have taken summer classes there, or a sibling of mine may attend the school, or perhaps I'm really a self-interested UCR student who enjoys posting under the guise of a UCSD student. Or maybe, I'm just a UCSD student who really has no affiliation with UCR. Whatever the case, it isn't relevant so long as I'm able to contribute to the article. For reasons previously cited, I hope you'll understand my desire to abstain from the poll. --WHS 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous users posting from UCR IP addresses that you speak of were the ones who would vandalize the article and delete negative statements from the article without discussion - naturally, those individuals were singled out. Having gone to UCR doesn't necessarily make you positively biased either, unless any of you wish to stipulate that I or I-B have added a positive bias to the article. It sounds to me like you really don't have any affiliation or knowledge whatsoever about UC Riverside, which is perfectly fine - like I said, it doesn't change your basic "right" to edit the article. UCRGrad 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may very well be true, but there aren't any rules on Wikipedia that says changes to articles must be justified in the talk pages. I've made many edits to other articles without calling attention to them through the talk page, and I'm sure others have as well. Even if they were deleting negative statements, one should assume that they were doing so under good faith.

And also, I'll appreciate if you don't make assumptions about the depths of my affiation with or knowledge of UCR. Although I don't attend the school, don't live in Riverside/the IE, and still don't wish to make my affiliation with the campus known, I'm absolutely certain that if you asked me a question about the campus that mostly only students would be aware of, I'd know the answer. Things like students currently using portable trailer bathrooms inbetween the Commons and the Bookstore because of the construction going on, or how Professor Bandyopadhyay says "gero" instead of "zero", or how photo IDs are taken in the basement of the Science Library.

I thank you for acknowledging that I still have a right to contribute to the article despite the fact that I don't attend the school. However, as I've mentioned earlier, I'm going to ask you to not make assumptions about how well I know the school based only on what little info my userpage gives. Also, it may or may have not been done in bad faith, but I generally don't take comments telling me I have no "knowledge whatsoever" regarding a subject in a cordial manner, so I will also appreciate if you refrain from directing those types of remarks at me in the future. Thank you. --WHS 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By not responding to the survey, and providing cryptic explanations for why your userpage says you attend UCSD, it is both implied and reasonably inferred that your knowledge of UCR is limited - the assumption I made (and I stated it as an assumption) was perfectly in order. With your most recent response, it is clear that you have some knowledge of the campus, itself, and I will assume that this is a response to Question #2 above. Keep in mind that if you had just stated what you just did, it would have saved at least 3-4 paragraphs of nonsense discussion in this TALK page. Your unwillingness to show at least an element of good faith is not looked upon favorably in my eyes, especially since Amerique and Danny were good enough to cooperate. UCRGrad 23:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how my unwillingness to participate shows a lack of good faith. I had previously elaborated my reasons for not wanting to answer the survey questions in a very clear manner and invited others to participate if they wished. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that nowhere does it say say declining to participate in a contrived poll on Wikipedia means you're not showing good faith. In no way was I by any means obligated to participate in the poll, so I simply decided not to. As far as your assumptions go, I had already asked you not to make any about me and gave you a variety of scenarios through which I could have obtained knowledge of UCR. You simply decided to push the matter and issued a subtle personal attack on me. And also, if you had just not made your assumptions, we also could have saved the same amount of paragraphs that you stated. --WHS 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "nonsense discussion" - can we move on and actually discuss the article? This entire section has no relevance to this encyclopedia article. Discussion of the relevance of this section has no relevance to this encyclopedia article. --ElKevbo 00:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. But then again, much of the bickering back and forth on the talk page in general hasn't had much to do with the actual article itself for various reasons. I shouldn't have let myself get dragged into this inane conversation. --WHS 00:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also decline for the same reasons that WHS has stated. Further, it's simply not important or related to the article or Wikipedia therefore I don't care to spend my time and energy on it. I let my contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves. --ElKevbo 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, the fact that you aren't even aware of the significance of the Thomas Haider program speaks a lot about your familiarity with the university. It's clear that you've never attended there, and that you only have basic knowledge of UCR - which is fine as well. UCRGrad 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither a student nor alum of UC Riverside. In fact, I don't even live in California! However, I believe in objectivity and fairness, and feel that any article that denigrates a university (even done in a subtle manner) should be edited. I understand that UC Riverside doesn't have the best academic reputation. But it's still better than a LOT of state FLAGSHIP universities out there (on top of my head, I'd wager that Riverside is better than Oklahoma, LSU, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arizona State, Ole Miss, West Virginia, the SUNYs, etc.). For me, to infer that UC Riverside has the worst academic reputation in comparison to the UC's is like saying Cornell is the worst school out of the Ivy League.

I am also highly bothered by this statement from UCRGrad: "Let's delete all negative information about UCR so my future employers will not know about them." Have any employers refused to offer a job to anyone solely b/c they attended UC Riverside? Any actual proof to this? You do know that employers look at you as an individual and see what you can bring to the table. And besides, if an employer denied you a job solely b/c you went to UC Riverside, isn't that discrimination of some sort?

Even a UCLA or UC Berkeley grad will not automatically get a job b/c of the name of their college degees; even if they did get the job just "because" they have a degree from those schools, they're gonna be in the hot seat from day 1 and the pressure is on them to prove they are worthy of the job. Just my $.02. Teknosoul02 12:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOH, you might want to re-read what I wrote. I merely gave an example of what kind of statement could constitute "obvious self-interest to promote the campus," nothing more! UCRGrad 21:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, careful there buddy. One of those institutions is my undergrad alma mater. :) But on-topic, I don't think you can really say that one institution is "better" than another except in some limited and defined areas. I sympathize with the desire to rank institutions and their programs but it's simply not realistic or a good way to judge institutions. Quite frankly, they're too complex. --ElKevbo 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ElKevbo, apologies for bringing up those two schools as examples. Both are excellent academic institutions no doubt; I'm just pointing out there's more to life (and getting a job) than graduating from a top academic institution. That performing well and proving yourself to be competent--irrespective of where you got your college degree--means much more down the road. Maybe I shoulda brought up USC and Stanford instead.  :)

But seriously, while I understand that your alma mater's academic reputation is a "plus" factor in deciding whether you can get a job, I think there's too much emphasis on a school's brand name reputation. I agree that we should take the school's reputation into consideration, but they should be anything but determinative. Other "plus" factors like work/internship experience, language ability, quantitative skills, ability to work well with others, etc. should be just as important, if not more so. Teknosoul02 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reputation of a school is always a factor when seeking employment or post-graduate studies. Some think that this this unfair, but that's the way it is.Insert-Belltower 13:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a blanket statement that isn't true. I'm sure there are many jobs for which the reputation of one's alma mater, particularly one's undergraduate alma mater, matters little or not all. I'll go so far as to state that there even some graduate programs where the reputation of your undergraduate alma mater matters little or not all (although I'm sure that is *not* the case in the top programs or even most of the better programs). If you remove "reputation" and replace it with "accreditation" then I think your statement is much closer to being 100% true. But even then it's still not 100% true as some unaccredited institutions have great academic reputations and their graduates have few or no problems with their unaccredited degrees. --ElKevbo 16:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree with Insert-Belltower. For instance, when applying to work as a gas station attendant, it is essentially irrelevant what the reputation of your college is. On the other hand, if you are applying for a competitive job in a competitive area or to a competitive graduate/professional program (i.e. medicine/dental/law) or to a top graduate school, it is silly to believe that your undergrad school reputation isn't considered alongside your other qualifications. UCRGrad 04:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a college grad even bother working as a gas station attendant? And no, UCR grads would not be doing that sort of job b/c they are far capable of doing better (as is any college graduate). That is a very POOR analogy there, UCRGrad. A better analogy would be: if one is interested in applying for a job in sales, real estate, or being stock-broker, then true, the reputation of your college matters little (yes I know there are instances of people w/o college degrees even succeeding in those fields, but it's very rare). I admit that in some instances (e.g., investment banking), your college reputation (unfortunately) matters quite a bit. It isn't very fair and downgrades a person's individual qualities though. Teknosoul02 11:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that that's what UCRGrad is saying. He's just finding an exception to my generalized statement above, which I still standby. While jobs hiring manangers/grad. programs look at a candidate in a comprehensive manner, the reputation of the school does matter- especially in terms of your GPA from a particular institution. A GPA at of 3.40 at UCLA means something different than a GPA of 3.40 at a Cal State (not to say Cal State is poor). Of course, post grad programs and jobs differ when they look at reputation, but the general fact still remains.Insert-Belltower 14:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my response was to satirize how weak debators often find a trivial exception to a statement without considering its intent/purpose (i.e. intentionally missing the main point). UCRGrad 18:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRGrad, there's no use in trying to subtly imply other editors here are "weak debators". It's not necessary and again, it's uncivil. Also, I notice that you haven't responded to my comment about me having no "knowledge whatsoever" about UCR. I wonder why that is? --WHS 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will participate in the survey as I am interested in where UCRGrad is going with this.

1) How familiar are you with UC Riverside? (i.e. extremely familiar or never-been-there)

• extremely familiar

2) What aspects/areas of UC Riverside are you familiar with?

• I am from the area and went to community college at SBVC, where I was educated by several UCR graduate student instructors. I was politically active, and apart from going to UCR for the punk shows at the Barn would also attend Mecha/La Raza conferences and anti-SP1, SP2, Prop 209 and police brutality demonstrations on campus. Apart from that, the IE being what it is, Riverside actually had a pretty vibrant downtown and I would sometimes go there just to hang out at Back to the Grind. Lots of friends of mine, smart people I know graduated from UCR and while no place is without its problems no one I know is as hung up on the place as two editors to this article in particular seem to be.

3) Where/how have you obtained information about UC Riverside to give you such a level of familiarity?

• I assume by "familiarity" you mean "with resources for editing this article" other than a social familiarity with the school. In editing this article I've mainly been relying on online sources put out by the UC, UCR, or UCR student publications (The Highlander), although I also have tracking the Press Enterprise for any news associated with the university. UCR recently recieved it's largest private donation ever (15 million) towards building its medical school. I notice this information hasn't been incorporated into this article yet.--Amerique 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amerique, thank you for sharing this information about yourself. UCRGrad 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Riverside to Michigan. What a big change, eh? I don't many people that do that. Insert-Belltower 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Very familiar (my mother was in the Ph.D. program there)

2) The sociology department based in Watkins Hall, mostly.

3) See #1. Danny Lilithborne 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny, thanks for taking the time to share this information. UCRGrad 04:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was in UCR's graduating class of 1957 and was handed my degree by Robert Gordon Sproul himself. There were 700 students then.

Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of re-adding the POV Dispute tag. While some editors believe the article is NPOV, it is clear that at the very least, there is a dispute involved. Discuss here. --WHS 10:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let's discuss.Insert-Belltower 17:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with this particular tag, so long as there is an ongoing related discussion about it. UCRGrad 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence that states that "none of its graduate schools...are ranked high enough to be in the US News and World Report's 2007 Best Graduate Schools" has to go. It's a non-fact with no place in this or any other article. In fact, Insert-Belltower's latest attempt at clarifying the statement has introduced an error into this statement. Just because the schools are not listed in the ranking does not mean that they were ranked too low. It's entirely possible that they were not ranked at all and there are many reasons why that may be the case.

UCR's grad programs are not well-recognized and do not have a strong reputation. This is why they are not ranked in the Top XYZ of each discipline. If you take a moment to read the METHODOLOGY published in each of US News and World Report's rankings, you will find that they typically use the master list of ACCREDITED programs in each graduate discipline. Thus, UCR was obviously considered if its particular grad school was appropriately accredited (which it should be). We have dedicated a lot of information on UCR's undergrad academics, but very little to its GRADUATE programs. I think it's important to include some information about how they rank. The fact that none of UCR's graduate programs rank in the Top XYZ of their respective lists says a lot, and it gives more information to the reader than simply omitting this information. The fact that UCR's graduate programs are not highly ranked is a fact, in and of itself. The term "non-fact," on the other hand, is a non-term - that is, it's more of a neologism than anything else. UCRGrad 16:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose some other changes. Specifically, I move that we:

1. Remove that sentence.

I agree. starkt 12:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is relevant to note that none of its graduate depts. (for example, Biology) are not ranked in the US News, since it already mentions the other US News ranking. I would be okay with removing the "ranked high enough" segment based on your reasoning now.Insert-Belltower 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. With very few exceptions, we don't have to mention that UCR or its programs, students, facilities, faculty, etc. are not present on any lists, rankings, etc. It's literally a "non-fact." --ElKevbo 02:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. starkt 12:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well what I'm trying to say is that we already mention US News rankings with respect to its ranking as a national university, and the graduate studies rankings are thus complementary data. We are not so much mentioning random lists that UCR is not apart of as we are presenting the other section of major resource that is already included. In addition, UCR has both an undergraduate and graduate component; the latter is already barely touched on in this article. Insert-Belltower 15:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Consolidate the first paragraph (which would be just one sentence) with the second paragraph (which only has two sentences and is written about a similar topic).

I think that cosolidating would be fine, expect there would be two sentences.Insert-Belltower 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Add the word "system" to the end of the sentence beginning with "UCR's peer assessment score..." to remain parallel with others uses of and references to the UC system.

Okay. Insert-Belltower 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Change the last sentence in this section to:

1. Move the AAAS part to the beginning.

2. Move the Nobel prize phrase to a new sentence with the addition of the recent UCR Nobel laureate (why was that ever removed???).

I don't see any reason why we should move around the AAAS portion, and the mentioning of the Nobel laureate alum is already stated in the Notable alumi section. I disagree with any changes here.Insert-Belltower 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranging the sentences are secondary. Adding the Nobel laureate is important to help balance out the (ridiculous, IMHO) "Look - no Nobel laureate at UCR!" statement. I really think the statement needs to go completely. Adding the laureate is an attempt at compromise. Is that an acceptable compromise? --ElKevbo 02:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Look -- no Nobel laureate at UCR" statement should be out regardless. starkt 12:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of this is not to say "Look.. no Nobel laureate at UCR" in some heckling tone. I would be okay with putting in the compromise, as long as it's worded appropriately. I would also like to know what other people think of this.Insert-Belltower 15:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new section would be:

UC Riverside ranks #85 among national universities and #37 among public institutions^[1], according to US News and World Report (2006). Compared to other campuses in the University of California system, UCR ranks last overall and has the lowest overall score^[1]. UCR's peer assessment score, which considers a school's academic excellence as rated by top academics, is also the lowest in the University of California system^[1].

According to The Princeton Review's Best 361 Colleges, 2006 guide (ISBN 0375764836) UCR is listed as one of the "Best Western Colleges"^[2] and one of "America's Best Value Colleges"^[3]. However, Princeton Review also ranks UCR as one of the worst 20 colleges in the nation for "Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses"^[4], "Professors Get Low Marks [for Teaching]"^[5], and "Professors Make Themselves Scarce"^[6].

UC Riverside has had the most American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) fellows in the nation^[7][8] for the past decade. Although UCR is one of four UC campuses that doesn't have any Nobel Laureates on its faculty (the others are UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz, and the newly opened UC Merced) ^[9]; however, a UCR undergraduate alumnus, Richard R. Schrock, was awarded a Nobel prize in 2005, and currently teaches at MIT^[10].

The AAAS references don't seem to support the assertion made in the paragraph. This entire section could also use a bit of wordsmithing and copy editing but let's tackle the big, structural, and meaningful changes first. --ElKevbo 18:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact UCR ranks 85th among national universities, and 37th among public universities, already tells you that the school is not stellar. So it is redundant to point out its lower rank in relation to other UCs as well as the criticisms leveled at it by the Princeton Review (at least in the academic ranking section.) [Starkt]

The #85 and #37 ranks say nothing about how UCR ranks relative to other UC's. Therefore, you cannot argue that also mentioning comparisons to other UC's is "redundant." UCRGrad 16:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone familiar with UC's high rankings overall, those numbers will say alot. Especially if you look at the actual rankings and see where the UC schools stand. So, yes, I can and do argue that pointing out UCR's low rank relative to other UC's in various areas is redundant. It really amounts to nothing more than a malicious attack on UC Riverside starkt 11:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider US News to be a credible source -- it is sensationalist and superficial. The National Research Council, the American Council on Education, selectivity rankings by Fiske and other more in-depth college guides -- those are the sources that should count. Princeton Review, Kaplan, studentreview.com -- these also should be rejected as sources. They are not scholarly, they are based on "scuttlebutt". [Starkt]

Princeton Review, Kaplan, and the SURVEY on StudentsReview.com are all verifiable sources for the purposes of this encyclopedia. If you think that the WP rules should be changed to reflect "what Starkt thinks is a credible source," you might want to bring this up with the admins. UCRGrad 16:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mentally deranged person saying that he is the king of France provides us with a "verifiable statement" in the sense that we can verify that he made that statement. That doesn't mean that we should take the statement seriously. starkt 11:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't taking any information from a person saying that he's the king of France; we are taking information from professional college research organizations.Insert-Belltower 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Those are media outlets and publishers whose purpose is to make money. They happen to do so by collecting and publishing information about colleges. "Professional college research organizations" would include groups like ACE, HERI, and the NSSE Institute. Much of the criticism of these rankings comes from the fact that they are not published by professional college research organizations. --ElKevbo 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last but not least, UCR is not a school that should attract anyone worried about how many Nobel prizewinners it has or produces. It should be pointed out, however, that it is a part of a world-renowned university -- the University of California -- and that its professors are of UC calliber as researchers. In other words, fair to middlin' students can get in there and rub elbows with some of the best and brightest. And they can do this very cheaply if they are California residents.[Starkt]

I agree that UC professors are high caliber. However, I disagree that students will be rubbing elbows with these renowned researchers, since according to PR, professors make themselves scarce, and TA's teach a bunch of classes. Boohoo. UCRGrad 16:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professors make themselves scarce at Harvard, Stanford and Berkeley. Lots of TA's at those schools. Your singling out of UCR in this respect is, again, making a negative mountain out of a molehill. starkt 11:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy howdy, if they work hard and have a sense of direction, they can use the resources of UC to go very far indeed. My brother in law started at UCR, has a PhD. in chemistry, has a hundred or more papers in leading academic journals (even though he isn't a professor) and made a lot of money in the biotech industry. He has raised a family and owns a nice house in a wealthy neighborhood in San Diego. His Ph.D., incidentally, is from another less-than-stellar UC school -- UC Santa Cruz. This is what we should be conveying. Not the negative @$*%# of UCRgrad and his sidekick. starkt 12:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows. If your brother-in-law had started at Berkeley instead of UCR, he may have continued with a Ph.D. at UCSF, published thousands of papers, become full-professor by now, and started his own biotech company. This is why anecdotal accounts, like the one you provided, are not so useful. UCRGrad 16:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCSF doesn't offer Ph.D.'s in chemistry; people don't publish thousands of papers; and my brother-in-law had no interest in becoming a professor -- much less a full-professor. He has started several biotech companies in partnership with others. So, again, your speculations are besides the point. I agree that anecdotal accounts aren't useful. Neither is data like the studentreview.com survey that you are so in love with -- based on a small, unrepresentative, self-selected set of respondents who, for all we know, never even attended UCR. starkt 11:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you were being sarcastic in that post, but to even remotely think that someone who goes to Berkeley would be automatically "more successful" than someone who went to UCR is really a fallacy in your thinking. No matter which school you went to, your drive and work ethic--not the degree of your school--will determine your success. Of course Berkeley has an an excellent academic reputation. But the mistake a lot people make is that they think that the academic reputation of their school could get them anything they want in life. Conversely, an even more fatal mistake is that many people often have self-pity and blame the "bad academic reputation" of their university for all the struggles in their lives. They are so consumed with bitterness towards their alma mater and its "lousy academic reputation" that they often fail to better themselves in life. But a person who does well at UCR will be a lot more successful in life than a person who sloughs off at Berkeley. Please don't use "my school has a bad reputation" as an excuse for your own inadequacies. (this isn't aimed at anyone in particular; just a general thought). Teknosoul02 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an individual's effort and motivation trumps all, but that goes for most things in life, not just college. A college's bad reputation will not make you unsuccessful in life alone, but it can sure hurt your achievements even IF you tried the very best that you could. Furthermore, with the sheer lack of motivation of UCR students, some of that is surely to infect even the most academically devoted. UCRGrad 22:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask a personal question, do you have any evidence (even if it's anecdotal) that shows that a person was not able to get a job or get into grad school simply b/c he went to a university with a "bad academic reputation"? Have you heard of any instances of companies refusing to hire someone b/c they went to a school that has a low academic reputation? for example, have you heard or even know of anybody who couldn't get the job he wanted SOLELY b/c he went to UCR (and not other factors, such as the student has lousy grades or no relevant work experience)? Thanks. Teknosoul02 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have.Insert-Belltower

I don't understand what you're getting at here about the AAAS references, could you explain.Insert-Belltower 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cited references don't support the statement made in the article. One of the cited references simply lists the members of the AAAS inducted in 2005 with no reference to the number from UCR over the past decade. The other reference is a few years out of date (2002, IIRC) and mentions that UCR was either first or second during the past seven years. Am I misreading these references or otherwise missing something? If so, please point it to me! --ElKevbo 02:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I think you are right. I motion remove the AAAS line until a proper reference is found.Insert-Belltower 15:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that my minor edits have been reverted to a "more grammatically correct" version, can we at least agree that the phrase (in "Rankings and distinctions"), "None of its graduate schools...are ranked..." should be, "None of its graduate schools...is ranked..."? "None" is a contraction of "Not one". You wouldn't say, "Not one of its graduate schools...are ranked..." anymore than you would say, "One of its graduate schools...are ranked..."; so why say, "None of its graduate schools...are ranked..."? I realize that this mistake is quite common, but it is still a mistake.

Lots of other sloppy usage and construction in the article, but I'm not going to bother making corrections at this point. starkt 11:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who worded your grammar edits, so I should reply. It's actually somewhat incorrect that "none" is a contraction of "not one". From dictionary.com:

It is widely asserted that none is equivalent to no one, and hence requires a singular verb and singular pronoun: None of the prisoners was given his soup. It is true that none is etymologically derived from the Old English word n, “one,” but the word has been used as both a singular and a plural noun from Old English onward.

I'm assuming that in the sentence in question, "none" was meant to be used plurally, since we're referring to "schools". Of course, we could avoid this problem altogether by just removing that sentence since it's pretty POV anyway. --WHS 13:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor edits in the interest of clarity -- no substantive changes -- and they were reverted to a version that the reverter claimed was "more grammatically correct." Okay, let's see...Under "Rankings and Distinctions" we find: "None of its graduate schools...are ranked..." "None" is a contraction of "Not one". It would be incorrect to say, "Not one of its graduate schools...are ranked." It would be correct to say, "Not one of its graduate schools...is ranked..." Likewise, it is correct to say, "None of its graduate schools...is ranked." But, apparently, the reverter disagreed. I realize that even newspapers nowadays make the mistake of writing, "None...are", but this is still incorrect. starkt 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My 1957 Webster's unabridged dictionary states that none is "often used as a plural." --ElKevbo 03:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, I think it should be considered singular. UCRGrad 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the sloppy construction in the "Admissions" section. Why "so long as they meet minimum eligibility criteria" when "as long" -- the more conventional usage -- would be perfectly fine? Also, you don't "meet minimum eligibility criteria", you satisfy them. So the sentence should either use the verb "satisfy" or substitute "admissions standards" for "eligibility criteria." "Eligibility criteria" is awfully hifalutin', while "as long as they meet minimum admissions standards" is sloppy, so I would go with -- ding ding ding! -- "as long as they satisfy the minimum requirements for admission." There, wasn't that easy? People get themselves into trouble when they try to be fancy, don't they? [Starkt]

I agree that criteria should be "satisfied" - sounds better. UCRGrad 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For accuracy and clarity's sake, it should be noted that UC uses "comprehensive review" in addition to grades and test scores in assessing applicants (usually a percentage of the entering class is admitted solely on the basis of grades/test scores, while the rest are admitted on the basis of grades/test scores combined with comprehensive review.) One doesn't substitute for the other. [Starkt]

My understanding is that for campuses that use it, comprehensive review is applied to ALL students. Nobody gets admitted on test scores alone anymore. That was the whole point of comprehensive review. UCRGrad 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...second highest acceptance rate...below the newly opened UC Merced" should be "...second highest acceptance rate...after the newly opened UC Merced." This is following convention, i.e., common usage. If you read a lot, you will find that the second way of saying it is the most common way. [starkt]

Changed. I agree. UCRGrad 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Its average admission GPA and SAT scores are..." suggests that the university itself has average admission GPA and SAT scores. In fact, the incoming freshman class has an average GPA and SAT score of X and Y, respectively. So the sentence should read, "The average GPA and SAT scores of the entering freshman class are..."

I disagree that the statement is ambiguous, but I think the new wording is fine. Changed. UCRGrad 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The percentage of admitted students...is the second lowest of the UC system" should read, "The percentage of admitted students...is the second lowest in the UC system." "In", not "of", is the conventional usage. [Starkt]

Agreed. And I edited the sentence for clarity. UCRGrad 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the phrase I just corrected begins a run-on sentence, or something very close to a run-on sentence: "The percentage of admitted students...is the second lowest of the UC system, after Merced, 17.3%." Sloppy construction that.

The use of the acronym "SES" for "socioeconomic status" is bureaucrat-speak, unworthy of an article that should be written in plain English. No one will be impressed.

The term "SES" is common in people familiar with population studies, but I agree that the layperson wouldn't find it very helpful. removed. UCRGrad 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This same study" should be "The same study". "This same study also reported..." is redundant. Exactly what does the "also" contribute? The sentence should read: "The same study reported..."

"This same study" is a common phrase in scientific journal writing - there's nothing wrong with it. UCRGrad 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could go on for pages, but I think my point should be clear. Not only do we have disagreements over substantive issues, we have people here who are unfamiliar with common usages "correcting" those who are familiar with such usages. [Starkt]

If I didn't have nothing else to do with my time, I wouldn't be wasting it on Wikipedia. starkt 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pssst - That's a double negative. :)

You're right, I should have said "anything". :) Oh, and it's nice to have UCRGrad agreeing with me on a few things. starkt 05:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of your changes look good to me. I, too, was a bit puzzled by the reversion of all of your changes. I can understand disagreeing with one or two of them but it seemed a bit hasty and callous to revert all of them without any discussion whatsoever. --ElKevbo 03:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read through his previous edit rather quickly, so I'll admit that my revert was a bit hasty. I really don't appreciate you calling it callous though, my reverts were done in good faith. --WHS 03:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings here. I think we're all a little trigger-happy. starkt 11:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss a particular topic of the article, please make a new header. I think we can all agree that it's becoming impossible to follow threads into their 10th generation above. Thanks. UCRGrad 03:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would think so judging from the Admissions section. What about out-of-state and international students, undergraduate transfer students, graduate students? starkt 05:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add this in, although you should definitely note the percentage of each that ultimate are admitted - it's not that much. UCRGrad 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tall order, because different graduate programs will have different percentages admitted and different admissions requirements. As for transfers and international students, schools tend not to keep figures on percentages admitted in my experience. Out-of-state freshmen? They might be lumped in with in-staters for the purposes of calculating the percentage of admits. But I'll see what I can come up with. starkt 11:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to doubt that UCR only admits California freshmen. From what I've seen of UC Santa Cruz's admissions materials, they'd give the same impression. But I did meet several first-year students from other states the one year I was in the dorms (at UCSC). From what I hear, just shy of 5% of UCSC undergrads are from other states. I'm having trouble finding similar stats for UCR, but I think the fact that they list out-of-state tuition is a good indication that they do admit freshmen from outside California. Though I imagine most out-of-staters in a position to get into a UC would opt for Berkeley, UCLA or UCSB (which I heard somewhere has the highest percentage of non-California undergrads). szyslak (t, c, e) 07:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that international and out-of-California students make up only a small portion of UCR's student body. I don't disagree with including this information, but I don't think it would be appropriate to emphasize it too much. UCRGrad 04:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, there should be a source. So at the moment, it's not worth spending much time on. One thing I do know is that most UCs don't have many out-of-state or international students. In particular, all the international students I met at UCSC were part of temporary study-abroad programs. So UCR likely isn't exceptional in that regard. szyslak (t, c, e) 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sources are important.Insert-Belltower 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel tag to remain

It's not as bad as it once was, but it's still biased. I don't think the article quite justifies the weasel words tag though. I'll re-add the disputed tag if discussion continues. --WHS 02:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this article is somewhat of an improvement, the main issue of contention I have is the whole "909" stigma. I still maintain that it's very inappropriate to include a reference to this stigma. The article referenced in this wiki page about Riverside county is questionable at best. It was written in a rather biased perspective from an Orange County newspaper. [Teknosoul02]

In contrast, I think that the orange county newspaper is 100% accurate in its depiction of the Inland Empire. Can you prove that the article is biased, or are you just speculating or stating your opinion? UCRGrad 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I implore those out there to please read my justifications about why the 909 stigma should be removed (under this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_California%2C_Riverside#The_909_.22Stigma.22). Teknosoul02 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read them and I didn't see any adequate justifications. If you disagree, please feel free to include them in this new thread. UCRGrad 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. There's no point to this section. other than to demean UCR. [Szyslak]

I can use a similar argument and argue that the only purpose of removing this section is to promote UCR. UCRGrad 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure others have said, it's extremely rude to break up other people's comments. szyslak (t, c, e) 01:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the WP policy that states that it's rude or poor etiquette to break up other people's comments, and I'll definitely stop. Otherwise, making interjecting statements is a common practice all over the internet - on usenet, on internet forums, etc. It simplies the process of responding to multiple arguments, and it makes it a lot easier to follow. If you do not like the practice of breaking up comments, then you can choose not to do it yourself, but you are not justified and demanding that others follow suit. UCRGrad 02:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "WP policy" against breaking up comments. But in the unspoken etiquette of Wikipedia, it's considered rude. I'm just letting you know. It's a free encyclopedia, so I can't stop you if you really want to keep doing this. szyslak (t, c, e) 03:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think there was a WP policy. In fact, WP help pages have all sorts of articles on what constitutes WP etiquette and NOWHERE does it mention that breaking up comments is considered rude. I have further give you numerous reasons as to why this practice is actually beneficial. Therefore, my conclusion is that there exists no such "unspoken etiquette" and that you are being quite uncivil for accusing me of breaking rules that don't even exist. Furthermore, you have failed to address my arguments that interjecting comments actually enhance readability here. Finally, your overall generalized rudeness far supercedes any possible rudeness that could conceivably be conveyed to even the most sensitive person reading an internet discussion in which interjecting comments are made for clarity. UCRGrad 16:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "generalized rudeness"? Where did that come from? If you honestly think I'm being rude to you, you're welcome to ask an administrator to block me. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually guys, there's no policy on breaking up other users' comments, but there is a guideline. From WP:EQ:

"Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea."

Notice, UCRGrad, that the page I linked to is titled "Wikipedia:Etiquette". So, it's not just an unspoken rule that it's poor form to break up the comments of others, it's written plainly for you to see. --WHSTalk 06:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along with UCR itself, there are a number of other well-regarded universities in the Inland Empire, especially the Claremont Colleges. Does the "909 Stigma" make the experience there any worse? szyslak (t, c, e) 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "909 Stigma" affects students attending UCR and those who graduated. Whether or not the stereotypes are true, the stigmata associated with the 909 are reflected upon students who went to school there. UCRGrad 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the proof? I would imagine most employers don't care where their prospective employees went to school, but what kind of education they got and how it applies to what type of job they're applying for. Does it matter to an employer that, for example, a San Diego State graduate went to school in the bad part of San Diego? Or that Yale University is in crime and gang infested New Haven, Connecticut? But that's only my speculation. We need proof. szyslak (t, c, e) 01:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also advise that we remove the StudentsReview.com survey indicating student unhappiness. The poll itself is not verifiable: who are these 47 participants? Actual students and alumni? Or anti UC-Riverside trolls in disguise? Teknosoul02 06:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The quote and statistic could just as well have come from someone's blog. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing up arguments that have already been specifically and adequately addressed previously. The data from the questionairre is published on a reputable website, with the survey's methodology explained in great detail as well. It constitutes a verifiable source. I agree that the survey is imperfect, but it suffers from a lot of the same concerns that a standard questionairre suffers from, in terms of experimental design. Does this mean that surveys are not useful scientifically? Absolutely not. Thus, unless you people can explain how the survey suffers from additional validity burdens that standard written questionairres do NOT carry, you really don't have a leg to stand on when you attack its validity. Finally, the notion that the survey could have come from someone's blog is propesterous.

Excerpt from StudentsReview.com methodology: Q: Could someone who either loves or hates a particular school go on and fill out numerous surveys to skew the results? A: No, it is not possible to skew the results in this manner. Yes, we allow students fill out multiple surveys -- as many as they want in fact, but we have an extremely sophisticated statistical modeler that easily catches multiple submissions or duplicates. As far as things go, detecting multiple submissions from one person is one of the easiest things to do. But several people have tried to defeat our model so far, without success. We've had 3 years of watching survey patterns, and 6,000 known valid surveys to train on, so it actually is easier to round up 200 different people and have them all take the survey than it is to falsify data to the site. As far as the statistics go, approximately 5% of the submitted surveys are invalid ones (either accidentally or intentionally) -- of those 5%, the statistical model catches >95%. This brings the error rate down to .2% -- 25 surveys/10,000.

Please note that I have posted the survey methodology to you people over 3 times, and each time you keep on making the same old arguments that seem to ignore this information. UCRGrad 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We know. You've already "proven" such-and-such point. You know, Wikipedia content disputes are settled by consensus, not by "how good our arguments are". And who determines how good our arguments are? You? szyslak (t, c, e) 01:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC) P.S.: It's also extemely rude to post comments in bold. It's just like typing in all caps: It implies shouting. So you're more or less screaming at us.[reply]

When I-B and I disagree with you and provide valid arguments, you don't have consensus OR justification! Bear in mind that the arbitrators have already ruled that my I represent a significant point of view as well. Furthermore, it is perfectly acceptable to emphasize statements and conclusions with bold, just as everyone uses bolded headers to separate sections. We do what we can to enhance readability and organization here. If you are offended by the occasional bolded comment, and you are intelligent enough to figure out that I am emphasizing a point and not shouting, then you're the one with the problem, not me. UCRGrad 05:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A single administrator's comment in an RFC does not constitute a ruling. Danny Lilithborne 05:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want to call it, an arbitrator's comment has far more merit and precedent than your opinion here. UCRGrad 06:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, anytime an admin has blocked you, once for a few hours, once for a full day, and another time for an entire week, you incessantly complained about it on numerous talk pages. Of course two of the times, your blocks were removed. Perhaps that's a sign that admins aren't as infalliable as you would lead us to believe here? --WHS 08:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I respect the admins here. Like it or not, they make the final decisions here, not you. You may or may not agree with them, but if you don't, your choice is simply to leave. Secondly, the last block was clearly a mistake, since Aeon1006 misled the admin into believing that I had been stalking him. Once the admin realized what was going on, he lifted my block immediately and warned Aeon1006. Errors can occur when admins quickly make decisions. However, when FOUR arbitrators carefully review a case and praise my contributions and involvement, there really is no argument here. And once again, if you don't like having admins, you can go elsewhere. UCRGrad 16:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to twist the RfArb results into praise for your contributions and methods. There is clearly significant disagreement from several people. --ElKevbo 16:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRG, the administrators are not authority figures. They are not above the rest of the community. They are simply trusted users who have been given some extra maintenance tools. When they block users or take other such actions, they are governed by community consensus and official policy. "Authority" on Wikipedia comes from Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and the community as a whole, not from such-and-such administrator. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, comments like that make it totally easy to assume good faith. Danny Lilithborne 08:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The RfArb had four administrators ruling on it. The first one said nothing specifically about your edits, merely that the conflict has created an article "free of fluff", and said editors on all side (read, both the anti-your POV camp and the pro-your POV camp) are being stubborn. Fred Bauder, the guy whose statement you hang your reputation on, barely said much of anything, just that you "present a significant point of view", which was more likely referring to the RfArb than the article in and of itself. Do us all a favor and drop the snobbish attitude; it's not earning you any brownie points. Danny Lilithborne 00:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRG, I'm not personally offended by your use of bold. I am not an easily offended person. You could type in 32-point bright red text and I wouldn't care. I do think it's rude, though. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"And I happen to think your condescension towards me is even ruder." UCRGrad 16:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been nothing but nice to you. How am I "condescending"? By disagreeing with you? I've dropped the "bold comments" issue. I strive to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. If you or anyone else thinks I've behaved inappropriately, contact an administrator or leave a message on WP:ANI, and if there's consensus I've done anything wrong I'll be blocked. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging your error with regard to the "bold comments."

Another thing: The SR excerpt you quote says they can detect multiple submissions from the same person. But there's no way of determining whether the reviewer attended the university. That's a simple task: Just require a university email address. Those are assigned to each student of a somewhat major university, and don't expire. I still have my UC Santa Cruz address, more than a year after I graduated. szyslak (t, c, e) 01:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have already argued ad nauseum that because it's impossible to be 100% sure that these are actual UCR students that filled out the survey, the survey is invalid? I'm sorry, but that argument is ridiculous. At best, you can argue that there is a margin of error, and that the questionairre is imperfect...and the same can be said about virtually any research out there. Like all questionairres, the SR.com survey has faults - but this does not change the fact that it is a verifiable fact, and it meets the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. No matter how much you hope/wish/pray, you can't change that. UCRGrad 05:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does a survey of opinion constitute a fact? Danny Lilithborne 05:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not? It is factual that "X% of students surveyed on blahblah.com responded that they would not return to UCR if given the chance." It is not necessarily factual that "X% of students would not return to UCR, if given the chance" on the other hand - there's a difference. This is why I-B and I report scientific data carefully here. UCRGrad 06:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone submitting responses to SR.com are students. Given that incredibly huge flaw in their methodology, labeling data from SR.com "scientific data" is laughable. --ElKevbo 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not ignoring what you've posted. It's irrelevant. Repeating or bolding it it doesn't make it relevant. The responses on StudentReview.com are anonymous responses collected via the Internet and that is just poor survey methodology in nearly any circumstance. Anonymous surveys are fine when you can ensure your respondents are members of your sample but they're not even able to so that. This alone is a fatal flaw in their survey methodology rendering it useless and far away from verifiable and reliable..

Further, their mysterious "extremely sophisticated statistical modeler" isn't detailed or explained. We have no reason to trust it at all. I would be willing to extend some level of trust to proven, experienced researchers but the folks who run SR.com are not proven and experienced researchers. There's a reason why we publish detailed methodologies for surveys particularly when our methodologies are novel or unproven. --ElKevbo 16:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP does not mandate that studies publish their methodologies in graphic detail, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. UCRGrad 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not reliable. "For academic topics, every field has an established system of reviews and evaluations that can be found in scholarly journals associated with that field." Following established methodology or publishing the deatils of novel methodology is the norm in survey methodology and research in general. --ElKevbo 17:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the inclusion of Students Review and the 909 section as is, but I would be willing to compromise if someone could come up with alternate wording. I would like to hear some suggestions.Insert-Belltower 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wording, as is, is as objective as possible without compromising the validity of the information conveyed. UCRGrad 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The StudentReview should not be included without pointing out the lack of any assurance that the respondents ever went to UCR, the fact that the sample is small and not necessarily representative of UCR students in general (even if the respondents did go to UCR), and the fact that the survey sample is self-selected. Of course, once all of this was pointed out, it would be silly to keep the StudentReview survey in the article. The reader would be asking himself, "So why did they even include this?" So to make a long story short: delete it. starkt 17:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 909 Stigma

":::The "909 Stigma" affects students attending UCR and those who graduated. Whether or not the stereotypes are true, the stigmata associated with the 909 are reflected upon students who went to school there. UCRGrad 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

UCRGrad, we are clearly not on the same page here. The only purpose I see here for including this 909 Stigma is to impugn UC Riverside. I have said it time and again that wikipedia is NOT to propagate negative stereotypes of school. You're assertion that the 909 Stigma affects UCR students and graduates is preposterous. Do you have any actual proof? The only people who promote the 909 Stigma are quite frankly anti-UCR folks (aka, USC trolls and trolls from more "prestigious" schools who enjoy putting down others to make themselves feel superior). [Teknosoul02]

If you don't think that a stigma of being a white-trash hick affects a student's image, particularly in those who LEAVE the Inland Empire, you're obviously living in the dark. Take two identical people. One person says, "I grew up in Beverly Hills." The automatic assumption is that he is rich, well-to-do, is important, and has social status. Take that same person and have him say, "I grew up in Riverside." The automatic assumption is that he is a white-trash hick who is probably middle or lower class, uneducated, and socially inept. UCRGrad 03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could turn it around and say that many would assume that a person who grew up in Beverly Hills is snobbish, stuck-up, materialistic, selfish, and only gives a darn about himself. That a person who grew up in Beverly Hills has a silver spoon in his mouth and expects to have everything handed down to him. That someone who grew up in Beverly Hills never learned the value of humility and hard work because they have an automatic sense of entitlement. Teknosoul02 03:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you coudl also argue that. Either way, the "stigma" associated with your geographical region affects the way people perceive you, and you've just substantiated my point. Thanks. Like it or not, the 909 Stigma affects anyone affiliated with the region, whether or not it is quantifiable. UCRGrad 05:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite evidence that "the 909 Stigma affects anyone affiliated with the region." If it's not demonstrable or quantifiable then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. See WP:OR. --ElKevbo 16:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every geographical region out there has a stigma associated with it. The entire STATE of West Virginia has the stigma of being associated with hillbillies, hicks, banjos, and roadkill. New York City has the stigma of being associated with elitism, heavy traffic, rudeness, arrogance and pollution. Boston has a similar stigma to NYC, but with the addition of blizzards and cold weather. I don't see the point of dedicating an entire section to negative stigmas of Riverside on a UCR page. And while I get the sense that you'd rather be associated with snobbiness and materialism (since it's obvious you yearn to be a part of the "rich elite" of Beverly Hills ... otherwise, why bring it up to further demean Riverside?), those qualities do affect the way people perceive you, rather negatively too. Teknosoul02 12:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Southern California has a very bad reputation for students who are materialistic, selfish, snobbish, and stuck up. Right-wing conservatives have a reputation for being extremists and war-mongerers. And living in the East Coast, I can attest that USC's negative stereotype is much more prominent than UCR's stereotypes yet I don't see anything on USC's page about the students being stuck-up, self-centered, materialistic, silver spoon in his mouth, etc. [Teknosoul02]

If you have a verifiable source that demonstrates that USC students are indeed materialistic, selfish, etc., then I would have no objection to you adding it to the USC wikipedia article. UCRGrad 05:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, USC students attend school in a "ghetto" part of Los Angeles. Does the stigma of attending a rich kid's school in the ghetto part of Los Angeles affect students attending USC and those who graduated? Does the fact that USC is located in a bad part of Los Angeles affect employers hiring USC grads? Who knows? [Teknosoul02]

The stigma of USC being located in a "ghetto" area of Los Angeles actually turns away a small proportion of potential students and their parents worried about their safety. Such a stigma would be pertinent to the USC article. Again, if you could produce a verifiable source that substantiates this fact, I would not object to its addition to the USC article. UCRGrad 05:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative stereotypes are do not belong on wikipedia! You claim that the 909 Stigma is "verifiable". Keep in mind that verifiability is the BARE MINIMUM policy. Just b/c something is verifiable, doesn't mean it's sufficient or appropriate to include in a wikipedia article. The newspaper aticle you provided (The OC Register) clearly has an biased agenda and its only goal is to denigrate Riverside in order to make itself (the Orange County) feel superior. [Teknosoul02]

I'm sorry, but I looked and I was unable to find a WP rule that states, "Negative stereotypes are do not belong on wikipedia." Did you, by chance, just make it up? In fact, since we're talking about policies, you are also incorrect about verifiability being a "bare minimum policy." Verifiability is one of only three core policies that "determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace." Finally, I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that The OC Register has a biased agenda against Riverside - did you also just make this up? Or did you read it somewhere? Cuz if you did, perhaps you can share where you're getting this from. Otherwise, it's just an opinion...which is essentially useless. UCRGrad 05:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your very logic, if it's okay to include the 909 Stigma about UCR, I suppose it's okay to include verifiable comments on George W. Bush's wiki page that he is an inept president and should be impeached for illegally leading the US into war in Iraq ... even if the "verifiable" source comes from Michael Moore or Moveon.org.

Not by MY logic. If Michael Moore wrote on his website that "Bush is an inept president," than the fact that he wrote such a statement *IS* a verifiable fact, that is, it can be verified that Michael Moore indeed made this statement. This specific scenario is addressed directly in WIkipedia policies. I suggest you read them. UCRGrad 05:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've tried to be fair about this article, and we're not interested in "falsely promoting" UCR's image. We are here to provide a fair and comprehensive article and including negative, unverifiable stereotypes of UC Riverside being associated with trailer parks and whatnot is irrelevant in an article about UCR. Teknosoul02 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify how a referenced and appropriately cited fact that comes from a mainstream and widely published newspaper constitues an "unverifiable stereotype?" Thanks. UCRGrad 06:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In contrast, I think that the orange county newspaper is 100% accurate in its depiction of the Inland Empire. Can you prove that the article is biased, or are you just speculating or stating your opinion? UCRGrad 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"

How can you say that this article is 100% accurate in its depiction of the Inland Empire? The only thing this article does is make pathetic, rather hurtful jokes at Riverside's expense. And the majority of this article is about a couple of snobs with way too much time in their hands bragging about how they've created a website that is dedicated to bashing the Inland Empire. It's obvious that those two guys who created that website are just total losers who are trying to compensate for their own inadequacies by making others feel inferior. How can you condone that article? Teknosoul02 02:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry, but the article spoke the truth, and it doesn't look like you're prepared to handle it. You seem obsessed with the concept of people saying things to "make others feel inferior." In fact, I would estimate that over half of your arguments contain some reference to people (or trolls) trying to make Riverside look bad in order to make themselves "feel good" or to make others feel inferior. I'm not sure where on earth you're getting this from, but it's like a pervasive thought that repeats itself in your mind. Do you feel inferior when people speak the hurtful truth about Riverside and UCR? That's okay, and there's nothing wrong with that. But the problem begins when you start accusing others of speaking the truth with the sole purpose of makig people like you feel inferior - that's just ridiculous, I'm sorry to say. There's nothing in that OC Register article that I disagree with. In fact, I thought it was completely accurate and representative. If you disagree with any of its contents on a factual/truthfulness basis, I'd be happy to discuss it. In the meantime, enough with the conspiracy theories. They don't help your case, and they're getting redundant. UCRGrad 06:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You "think" that this article is representative and accurate. Anyone could THINK that something is true even when it isn't. Many people THINK that going to war in Iraq was wrong--but does that mean it's true? Many people THINK that Hollywood movies suck. Is that true? a lie becomes the truth when you believe in it. [Teknosoul02?]

I agree. This is why people should be expected to provide reasons and arguments to support their "thoughts." Teknosoul02 "thought" that the OC Register is a newspaper dedicated to berating the Inland Empire. I thought otherwise. In doing so, I provided an equally rigorous counter argument based on opinion - demonstrating once again that in the absence of reasoning and arguments, one's non-expert opinion is useless. UCRGrad 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're reading the same article as I am. The OC Register article is devoted to berating the Inland Empire. You seem to think that The OC Register is speaking the truth about the 909 Stigma, yet I don't see any substantial evidence other than a couple of dorks who brag about creating a website for the sole purpose of denigrating a county. If you honestly think that what The OC Register is saying is true, where are the statistics to back it up? Can you find a credible survey that actually measures the percentages of those living in trailer parks? Do you have any maps or visual illustrations to show that Riverside is indeed full of trailer parks and "white trash"? What about surveys that give an accurate measure of the percentage of those inhabiting Riverside are "white trash hicks"? I'd like to see some concrete proof from a CREDIBLE source (e.g., not a USC blog that has a self-selecting survey) that actually measures that what the article purports is true.

Perhaps you have some anecdotal experience you'd like to share with us (that is, b/c you went to UC Riverside, people associated you with the negative stereotypes of Riverside) and that you've experienced this 909 stigma for yourself so that you know more first hand about the 909 stigma than me. But let's see some concrete proof (a third-party, neutral survey that accurately measures the lifestyles of Riverside county). I'd like to see some quote from ACTUAL UCR students (that is, we can verify that it is the students/alumni themselves who said it) that claim that the 909 stigma has had a negative impact on their college experiences. teknosoul02 23:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, The OC Register is a reliable and verifiable source. Remember, the fundamental criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." I have satisfied verifiability, and provided information that I believe in good faith to be true, however, I am not REQUIRED to prove that something is true. Secondly, by asking me to conduct surveys and cite anecdotal evidence, you are demanding that I participate in ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is strictly forbidden on WP. Therefore, I implore you to re-read the WP policies because for someone who has been editing this article so long, you have the least knowledge of WP policies compared to your peers - and this happens time and time again from you. Thanks. UCRGrad 15:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I NEVER asked you to conduct original research. And please don't patronize me. You're only alienating those who want to work with you to make this article better. Granted, I am fairly new to wikipedia and prolly have not used it as extensively as others, but I know what OR is. Even knowing OR, we can all make mistakes at times and for you to be condescending towards me, you are acting rather uncivil yourself. Get over yourself.

However, when you claim that you know that The 909 Stigma is true, you're just asking for others to want you to PROVE it to them that it's true. What I was saying is if you can find another source (a newspaper article, academic journal, etc.) that actually backs up your assertion of the truth of the 909 stigma. I NEVER asked you to do surveys for yourself asking others whether the 909 stigma is true; but there should be a better source out there that actually gives the measures of hicks, trailers, cows, etc. of Riverside. FIND an article that actually substantiates you believing the truth of the 909 stigma. Teknosoul02 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get the conspiracy theory from, but I will concede that my references to trolls and stuff were due to my observations on college message boards such as xoxohth and collegeconfidential. And if you've been to those message boards, all the UCR bashing comes from trolls like UCRiverbed, who purportedly claim to be students from UCLA or USC (with much fewer anti-UCR trolls also coming from UC Irvine). Maybe b/c I see so much negativity on UCR attributed to those trolls that anytime I see someone bashing UC Riverside, I would say that it was an anti-UCR troll from a more "prestigious" college in Southern Cal. And I don't even live in California, let alone Riverside county so I'm not exactly sure why I would feel "inferior" if someone talked down on Riverside. I have no relatives in Riverside either.

Nobody here is "bashing UCR." An example of bashing would be a comment like "UCR sucks." On the other hand, providing truthful statistics about the campus, whether negative or positive, is merely conveying information. There's a huge difference. Just because somebody presents truthful data that does not shed UCR in a good light, it doesn't necessitate that that individual is a troll. I will further add that it is definitely not civil to accuse others of being a troll either. UCRGrad 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I see absolutely no meaningful statistics at all about Riverside county (or even how this 909 stigma is relevant to UCR except to impugn the school). All The OC Register article says about Riverside county is, oh it's full of racists and white trash, without substantiating their accusations. The article fails to back up their assertions that Riverside is full of white trash and hicks. And no, the article's reference to "The OC" (a show that is about as high quality as The Jerry Springer Show) on Fox does not counts as a legitimate justification for these stereotypes. I suggest you re-read the article more carefully b/c frankly, we are not on the same wavelength here. teknosoul02 23:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, while I believe that verifiability is an important principle, wikipedia policies also held that just b/c something is verifiable doesn't mean it's sufficient. If we find a quote that says that Ann Coulter is an infidel and an unsympathetic war-mongering lady (since you are so sensitive to my use of cuss words, I will use lady) and the source of that quote is Al-Jazeera (sp), would it be okay to post that on Ann coulter's wikipage even if that were verifiable? Use a little common sense here....

There's more I wanna say, but I have to get to work. Teknosoul02 12:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time, if the "Al-Jazeera (sp)" commented that Ann Coultier was an infidel, and this statement was published in a valid source that can be verified by individuals like you and me, it would be acceptable to state in the Ann Coultier wikipedia article that Al-Jazeera indeed made this comment. On the other hand, it wouldn't be acceptable to simply state that Ann Coultier WAS an infidenl, and use Al-Jazeera as a reference. There's a DIFFERENCE, and once again, the WP policies specifically address this. This is also the SECOND example I've provided that illustrates the exact same point. I suggest that you spend some time realizing your misunderstanding rather than once again rehashing the same arguments that have already been addressed. UCRGrad 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in the sentence you wrote: "On the other hand, it wouldn't be acceptable to simply state that Ann Coultier WAS an infidenl, and use Al-Jazeera as a reference." Replace Ann coulter with "Riverside County", infidel with "trailer trash, hicks, cows, white supremactists" and Al-Jazeera with "The OC Register" (a blatantly one-sided newspaper devoted to bashing Riverside) and this is exactly what you are doing with the whole 909 stigma.

Al-Jazeera is a clearly biased and unreliable source. The OC Register is a widely circulated newspaper in Orange County and fits the textbook definition of a "good source" for Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is absolutely preposterous to believe that such a credible newspaper is actually a "blatantly one-sided newspaper devoted to bashing Riverside" in disguise. Gimme a break, man. UCRGrad 15:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 909 Stigma section simply states that Riverside County is full of hicks and trailer trash and uses The OC Register as a reference. That's EXACTLY what you're doing, particularly in regards to this part of the article: "The Inland Empire area is sometimes referred to as "The 909," which makes reference to the region's former primary area code, but is also associated with trailer parks, methamphetamine use, white supremacists, and cows[61]." Teknosoul02 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I have provided a reputable source to support this statement...not only that, but it's a true statement as well. UCRGrad 15:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, The OC Register being referenced is itself extremely one-sided and does not mention a single decent attribute about Riverside. This part of the UCR article damanges the neutrality principle of wikipedia. Remember, just b/c something is verifiable doesn't mean it's sufficient. The OC Register article is biased, and even outdated! (I tried accessing the valleyofthedirtpeople.com site and it says that the domain name has expired!!!) teknosoul02 23:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 909 stigma also includes this gem of a line: "The region has also been the subject of frequent mockery by a variety of websites, television shows, radio stations, as well as bumper stickers[61]." Yeah, high quality shows (sarcasm) like The OC accurately depicts the image of Riverside county. And do you have any precise examples of websites or radio shows that mock Riverside county? And if you do, maybe check WHO is operating the website. For example, there are plenty of articles and webpages mocking USC as the "University of South Central," the "University of Second Choice", etc. And on a personal note, I can find plenty of articles that deride and mock my proud state of New Jersey (we don't pump our own gas, etc.). The point is, EVERY subject out there from politicians to TV shows, sports teams, and movie stars to cities, towns, and academic institutions have been frequently mocked by people on a variety of media. Why bother putting in the line I have quoted in bold as an important part of the article about UCR (when it really isn't even about UCR)? Teknosoul02 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have verifiable sources to support the notion that other entities are mocked, you are free to include such information in their respective WP articles. UCRGrad 15:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I have no problem with you using the smog and drug references b/c at least the articles give some credible statistics that show that those ARE a potential problem with Riverside. but focusing on stereotypes is uncalled for. User:teknosoul02 23:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no focus on stereotypes - this article provides just one section on the reputation Riverside has, hardly a "focus." It deserves mention because it is true and relevant. UCRGrad 15:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting the tag for the entire article back up. Although the 909 section seems to be the source of most of the contention as of the moment, there is still possible bias in the admissions, rankings, alumni, Haider, hate crime, housing, air pollution, the aforementioned 909, and athletics section, essentially the entire article. There hasn't been any resolution to previous arguments regarding the sections (aside from some editors declaring the arguments of other editors faulty and their own arguments compelling), so the tag seems to be warranted. --WHS 07:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone removes the tag, just look at the reams and reams of debate over one NPOV issue after another. That alone justifies the need for the tag. Whether "my side" is right or not is immaterial. The fact is, some editors think this article isn't neutral. Therefore, the neutrality of this article is disputed. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the 909 Stigma is the only section that there is current contention for...and the arguments against it aren't even RELATED to neutrality. They're related to its relevance. If you do not provide appropriate reasons as to why the "neutrality" of the article is disputed, you cannot put the tag up. UCRGrad 16:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to ignore the straw poll that was recently conducted. It's clear that several editors believe there are significant POV problems in this article and those problems have been detailed. --ElKevbo 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed substantially since the straw poll, and the results are no longer applicable. If you continue to dispute the neutrality of this article, you're going to have to state why. I don't have a problem with the POV tag, AS LONG AS IT IS JUSTIFIED. UCRGrad 16:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, much of it hasn't changed substantially and many of the objections are still valid. It's been less than a month. I'll dig out the pertinent information later. The above discussions regarding the graduate schools' rankings (or lack thereof) and the 909 "stigma" are evidence enough for now. --ElKevbo 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't work that way. You can't put up a POV tag and say "I'll justify it LATER." Either show evidence of a CURRENT dispute of the neutrality of the ENTIRE article (not one section) or wait until you have time to provide such evidence. Tags are not meant to be put up for trivial reasons. UCRGrad 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient evidence in the discussions right above this section. Stop violating WP:OWN. --ElKevbo 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT evidence!? The only concern people have CURRENTLY is regarding the inclusion/exclusion of the TRUE 909 Stigma of the Inland Empire. Including a paragraph containing true and cited facts hardly constitutes a non-neutral point of view. UCRGrad 19:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is in the article. Just about every negative thing anyone could say about the school -- whether warranted or not (not, in the case of the StudentReview.com "study") -- is in the article, without positive or qualifying information. The article thus blatantly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. starkt 14:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, UCRG, in the mountains of talk archives (I've just helpfully created Archive 11), we've argued these issues to death. And you, along with I-B, simply refuse to accept that there are other valid viewpoints besides yours. Really, what is an "appropriate reason" for tagging this article? I see, it's only appropriate if you say it is. I don't buy that line, and I doubt anyone else here does either. szyslak (t, c, e) 05:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. starkt 14:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence from the straw poll which currently applies despite "substantial" changes:

• "The information and statistics are fine, but some parts of this article are questionable, such as " Indeed, a large proportion of incoming freshmen arrive with inadequate preparation..."

Still in the article, so there is still a dispute.

• "Most universities don't have a graduate school mentioned in the U.S. News..."

Still in the article, so there is still a dispute.

• Regarding Nobel Laureates, "As discussed several months ago, this is a non-fact whose relevance to this or any other university article has not been established."

Still in the article, so there is still a dispute.

• "Not only is this section biased, it's poorly written and misleading. The very first sentence implies that an 85% freshmen..."

Still in the article, so there is still a dispute.

• "The quote should go. Quotes from public review sites, like StudentsReview..."

Still in the article, so there is still a dispute.

I could go on and on, but I'm guessing the point has been made. Also, UCRGrad, it's absolutely clear that the dispute still exists even though current discussion is focused on the 909 section. It's impossible to tackle every aspect of the article at once as there are so many sections that people contend, so therefore saying that there must "CURRENTLY" be discussion of said subjects to justify the POV tag is not only ridiculous, but also unfeasable. --WHS Talk 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When UCRG demands removal of the POV tag, he claims those who oppose his preferred version haven't "justified" the tag or "given reasons for it". When we do, he says our justification isn't good enough. IIRC a while back he actually argued for tagging the article any time it wasn't at his preferred version. To tag the article for POV, there needs to be only one editor disputing its NPOV status. I can't speak for everyone, but I for one dispute its neutrality. This article is a slam piece on a thoroughly decent school. It cherry-picks negative "facts" and complete nonsense. Yes, there has been some progress, but not nearly enough. szyslak (t, c, e) 05:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. starkt 14:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the history section of the UCR article, UCRGrad wrote:

"19:12, 11 August 2006 UCRGrad (Talk | contribs) (POV once again removed, as there is no current dispute regarding neutrality. Furthermore, who on earth keeps removing the Wash monthly stuff? I personally don't care if it's there or not.)"

So UCRGrad doesn't mind if we happen to remove the Washington Monthly rankings rating, but he's adamant on keeping an article that promotes a negative image of UCR (the 909 Stigma) which doesn't even relate to UCR! Wonder why? Is it b/c Washington Monthly ranks UCR #22, hence actually presenting UCR in a good light for a change and doesn't make UCR look bad? That's rich. Teknosoul02 21:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good reasoning there, Teknosoul02. In reality, Washington Monthly is an obscure, virtually unknown, publication that ranks schools not based on the education or opportunities they provide, but based on how the schools use federal funds and school the underserved. I'm sorry, but this methodology essentially produces a "useless" ranking. There's a reason why US News is on every newstand and on every academician's desk, whereas Washington Monthly is likely to engender confused looks. Ordinarily, I would push to have useless information like WM's junk rankings removed, but I figure I should compromise and not oppose its inclusion since it's at least a verifiable fact. If anything, I'm consistent. UCRGrad 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that UCR has the lowest overall score and peer assessment score of the UC institutions. I'm not seeing it in the cited source. I'm sure it's there but I'm just missing it. Can someone please explicitly point out where those scores are actually listed? Or is these some of the "gotta pay to see 'em" data points? --ElKevbo 21:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta pay to see the peer assessment score of all colleges. I am pretty sure that statistically speaking (at least according to US News and World Report), UCR does have the lowest peer assessment score of the UC institutions (though it is still decent--it's at least around a 3.0 on a 5.0 scale). I do not dispute that statistic (even though I still question the overall ranking methodology of US News and think that the rankings themselves are borderline fraudulent). But that's another rant. Teknosoul02 21:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the statistic either - someone has to be at the bottom, right? I'm just curious and trying to find the actual values. I work in an academic library but either I can't find our printed copy or someone swiped it. I've found several other university rankings but not the one for which I'm looking... :( --ElKevbo 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the rankings for the Tier 2 Universities:

http://www.geocities.com/alcompti/uni51.jpg

UCR's peer assessment score is 3.1 (out of 5.0). Not bad, but definitely the lowest of the UC schools. UC Santa Cruz is the second lowest at 3.2 (out of 5.0). Interestingly enough, UCR's peer assessment score is only marginally worst than my alma mater's (Rutgers, with a peer assessment score of 3.3). UCR also has the same graduation rate as my alma mater (71%). So c'mon, UCR really can't be THAT bad of an institution. Of course, it helps that Rutgers is the top state school in New Jersey and in the East Coast, the only major state school competition are UNC-Chapel Hill and University of Virginia (though we do have to compete with Michigan grads at times too).  :) Teknosoul02 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo works in an academic library and he can't even find a recent issue of a widely available magazine like US News!!?? Quite frankly, I'm dumbfounded. Furthermore, I think it's nice that you compare UC Riverside to Rutgers. Rutgers is a virtually unknown school to people living in California, and probably has a similar reputation to UCR - this is consistent with the similar peer assessment score.UCRGrad 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: crossing out people's contributions is vandalism. UCRGrad 03:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because *everything* that is in the catalog is in the stacks where the catalog says it is, right? Especially popular, often used items? It's obvious that *you* have never worked in a library... :) --ElKevbo 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree with the way this paragraph is phrased:

"Like other public universities, UCR has a low alumni giving rate.[24] UCR has an alumni giving rate of 5%, the lowest of any institution in US News & World Report's "National University" category. In comparison, UCLA's alumni giving rate stands at 16%, UC Berkeley's at 15%, UC Davis at 10%, and UC Irvine at 9%. [22][24]"

I wanted to emphasize that public universities across the nation DO have rather low alumni giving rates. With so much negativity about UC Riverside, I think that for once, let's try to give UCR's lowest alumni giving rate some context. This article constantly focuses on how UCR statistically sucks compared to other UC's and how UCR is dead last in so-and-so category compared to other UC's. I think that for once, let's make it clear that while admittedly, UCR has the lowest alumni giving rate of all the "National Universities" according to US News rankings, the other UC's don't have that much higher alumni giving rates. Let's face it, a 15% alumni giving rate ISN'T anything to celebrate. But it also doesn't diminish the quality of academic excellence that Berkeley has come to symbolize. The UCI article, while not perfect, at least lets people know that low alumni giving rates are an epidemic all over the nation. I think it's fair to present this argument to make this article more neutral and let readers understand that low alumni giving rates is a problem(?) in state schools. Teknosoul02

I agree. starkt 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think is a matter of opinion as to whether " UCR statistically sucks compared to other UC's."

If UCR ranks lowest in all the given areas, then it is not just a matter of opinion. It's a fact. However, it is a selective fact, one that ignores the ways in which UCR might be better than other UC schools. starkt 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Rankings are not opinions, they are facts. The argument above is to "sugar-coat" this particular negative fact by giving it context, with the justification that we've already provided so many other negative facts. That, in an of itself, is creating POSITIVE BIAS, and is not acceptable. I do not have a huge objection to mentioning 1-2 other UC's, but after that, it becomes cumbersome. We cannot list comparative statistics for every single statistics in the article (unless they can be grouped together, like "all UC's"), as it would compromise flow and readibility. UCRGrad 15:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for giving a context to the alumi giving, there is already one with the mention a couple of the other UC's. I don't think there is any reason to sugar coat the data to introduce positive POV in the article.Insert-Belltower 02:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is there any reason to introduce negative POV by highlighting an area in which all public universities do poorly, and many private ones do not do much better. starkt 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how putting statistics in context is sugar coating anything. One of the largest problems with this article is that too many numbers are being thrown around without any explanation and worded in a way to make them appear worse than they are (i.e. the remedial math and English, retention rate, alumni giving rate). Oh, and it's funny. If even the slightest hint of positive bias is introduced then it's an absolute travesty, but the negative bias the article is currently riddled with is perfectly fine. --WHSTalk 06:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with putting statistics in context, but it must be accurately explain the numbers and not attempt to soften them.Insert-Belltower 14:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you remove contextual information, such as the fact that most public universities have low alumni contribution rates because people perceive public universities as being supported by tax dollars. Such information does not "soften" the numbers, it explains them. starkt 15:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that if any explanatory text is provided, it should at least elaborate on what the statistic signifies (like alumni giving rate = the percent of alumni who donate back to their alma mater), which I think we do a good job of doing. Secondarily, if it is meaningful and informative to compare to other UC campuses, that's also fine...but to do so for the sole purpose of sugar-coating a bad number...not acceptable for obvious reasons. UCRGrad 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You on the other hand have consistently spun things in a negative direction. Pointing out that UCR has no Nobel Laureates (very few schools do have them), pointing out its low alumni contribution rate (few public universities have high contribution rates), using a StudentReview.com survey that is self-selected, small, and made up of people who might not even have attended UCR as a reliable source. When people try to have this negative information removed as irrelevant, or placed in its true context, you and Insert-Belltower resist at every turn. You are hardly in a position to accuse anyone of sugarcoating when in fact people are trying to get rid of the blatant POV you have introduced into the article. starkt 15:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to sugar coat anything. I wanted to give the statistics some sense of context. I also have to second WHS in my observations here. Seems you'd rather have this UCR article riddled with negative biases--under the pretenses of "telling the truth". But anytime anyone else tries to give the "negative" facts a sense of context (and that includes mitigating the negative facts so that readers get an understanding of what is going on), you accuse us of introducing positive bias. Keep in mind that per WP:policy, we should strive for balance. If we includes negative facts, we should at least give some context ... even if it means mitigating these negative facts. We are not hiding the negative facts here, but we also do not want to exaggerate the school's worst characteristics b/c this could give readers the wrong impression that the school is much worse that it really is. Teknosoul02 12:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is, of course, based on the false pretense that the article has a negative bias and that you are trying to make it neutral. In reality, the article lists the facts straight-up and objectively - there is no sugar coating of positive facts to make them more negative, and there should NOT be sugar coating of negative facts to ameliorate them. Balance does not imply that negative facts be paired with a positive fact. The negative facts are what they are, and in important areas, UCR has a disproportionate quantity of them. That's just the way it is. UCRGrad 15:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. starkt 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the fact but I think the UCI article is a poor source. I've found a much better source for this information, though: The Council for Aid to Education (CAE) Voluntary Support of Education Survey. I've requested an account for their data mining tool. A summary of the 2005 findings states that: "These findings are from the annual Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) survey, which has tracked giving to higher education and private K-12 schools for more than 50 years. The 1,005 institutions that participated in the 2005 survey represent nearly two-thirds of the nation’s four-year institutions, including 90 percent of research and doctoral institutions. Respondents generally account for about 85 percent of the voluntary support raised by all colleges and universities."

As this appears to be one of the most definitive sources for this data, I recommend holding off until I (or someone else - it appears to be free for higher ed students, staff, and faculty to request access) can get access to the 2005 data and cite it as the source. Their appears to be at least one reference (a listserv posting so it's definitely not something we could reference in the article) that states that the 2004 data from this survey indicate that of those undergraduate degree-bearing alumni solicited for funds the average percentage that gave were 16% and 27% for public and private institution, respectively. --ElKevbo 22:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's using the UCI article? We're getting alumni giving rates from US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT. UCRGrad 15:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article again. --ElKevbo 16:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very title of this section seems quite biased. In looking at pages on other UC schools, there seems to be no reporting in regards to the surrounding areas. The UC population tends to have a much lower crime rate as a whole than most areas surrounding those UCs.

Also, this article does not reflect points of view that speak to the acceptance of minority groups at UC Riverside, such at the LGBT community. UCR was featured in “The Advocate College Guide for LGBT Students” as one of 100 schools profiled for acceptance of the LGBT community.

I realize I'm pretty new here, but I was hoping this could also be dicussed. FrostedTheFlake 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with putting in the LGBT data. We have previously discussed the diversity section. Let us know what questions you have about it. Insert-Belltower 17:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have information regarding LGBT community acceptance from a reputable, verifiable source, please include it in the article. With regard to your feeling of "bias," there is none. Please do not confuse conveyance of negative information with "bias," because they are not the same entity. The article does not convey statistics on crime in general, as you say, but on hate crime, specifically - of which the school and the surrounding area have serious problems with. UCRGrad 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I would just ignore this Danny guy, he probably hasn't checked his GFR today.Insert-Belltower 14:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good luck, you're up against quite the rhetoric master. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest creating a new sub-section titled "Campus/Student Security," and moving hate crime and other related information there. --Amerique 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a lot of edits, mostly for style, grammar, spelling, tense agreements, clarity, singular-plural agreements, brevity, conventional usage and so on.

I will not accept wholesale reverts of these edits. If you revert, I will revert in turn.

As a courtesy, you should edit, not revert, unless what you are reverting is obvious vandalism.

I will no longer accept blatant POV in this article.

Nor, as an alumnus of UC, will I tolerate sub-literate writing and editing. starkt 14:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, but it's really not up to you only what are the rules for editing the article.Insert-Belltower 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned. I will revert any reverts you or others make. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not accept accusations that there is a blatnat POV, especially in the absence of sufficient evidence that supports this.

The evidence is overwhelming. What you "accept" is of no interest to me. It is what Wikipedia accepts that matters. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking on style/grammar/spelling and arguing against inclusion of 1-2 sections is a far cry from "blatant POV." Let me remind you that WP policy instructs youto assume good faith.

It is hardly nitpicking to make editorial changes to an article that appears mostly to have been written by someone who has read very little, and who writes sloppily and ungrammatically as a matter of course. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the vast majority of the grammar errors you corrected were not originally made by me. Furthermore, the majority of text was submitted by Amerique, not me. Finally, thus far, I have not been very impressed by the caliber of your writing - so don't pat yourself on the back just yet. UCRGrad 02:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, you cannot go to ANY well-established article and make such sweeping changes and NOT expect your modifications to be revereted instantenously.

Yes, I can, and I have. Quite often. Literate people of good will have accepted my editorial changes -- often sweeping -- without objection. They understand that Wiki's policy is that ANYONE can write and make edits, not just Insert-Belltower and UCRGrad. You don't "own" this article. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe it, try it on another such article.

I have, with no problems. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a lot of excellent changes in wording here and there

Thank you. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

with a few that don't quite work connotatively (for examples, medical students don't "serve" a clerkship)

What do they do then -- study a clerkship? learn a clerkship? I'd be interested to know. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if you don't know how to use a word in a sentence, then maybe you shouldn't try. It's called "overextending your knowledge base." UCRGrad 02:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you made some factual changes that are incorrect, such as stating that the freshmen retention rate of 85% was the highest in the UC System - it's actually the lowest.

Not according to the article. I was merely restating what was already stated. Look at what was written before. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want to make grammar/spelling/style changes, please feel free to do so. However, if you're going to make sweeping modifications that you already know that I-B and I will not agree with, it goes without saying that there will be a reversion. UCRGrad 14:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then I'll revert back. That goes without saying as well. But you will notice that I have carefully preserved most of your and Insert-Belltower's bias. I am not interested at this point in removing all the POV from the article. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well let us know when you plan to introduce your positive POV in the article in order to create a lofty image of the school.Insert-Belltower 16:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important for statistics and numberical figures to have a context in an encyclopedic article, which helps to explain their significance and meaning. However, I strongly object to adding facts that go to extraordinary leaps to assuage negative information. One such example was a set a changes by Tecknosoul02:

"However, the University of California system is usually regarded to be one of the most prestigious state school systems in the nation so UC schools are generally held to a higher standard that most public school systems. Despite [UCR] being ranked last in the aforementioned categories out of the UC schools, UC Riverside has still held its own against other flagship state universities including those in Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Oregon, Louisiana, and West Virginia."

Why is it relevant to suddenly compare UCR to "flagship campuses" in other states? The comparison is completely arbitrary and appears to be an attempt to blunt the impact of the negative information presented. Why were these schools selected? I would like to know the answer to the following question: how does including this information provide a context for the data; how does it better explain the data, other than to introduce unnecessary emphasis? Insert-Belltower 21:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey listen, you DO NOT HAVE unilateral authority over this article. Everybody has the right to edit this article to make it more fair and balanced. It seems that whenever I attempt to make this article more fair, you accuse me (and every other editor) of "positive bias". Then again, this coming from the person who seemingly thinks its okay to label his own alma mater an "abomination to higher education". Calling your own alma mater an abomination to higher education is like saying its okay that you daughter gets raped b/c she dresses provactively.

The context I have provided is necessary; to show that the schools in the UC system are generally held to a higher standard that most state schools and that in the greater scheme of things, UC Riverside is still a decent school. Teknosoul02 02:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, gotta agree with IB on this one. I don't think it's quite appropriate to compate UCR with flagship institution from most other states. I don't think it's necessarily that UCR can't or shouldn't be compared to them but that they are likely too different from one another to make for a good comparison. Does anyone have or know of a listing of the institutions that UCR considers its own peers? --ElKevbo 12:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think an explanatory context is "necessary" at all. I think that when a meaning of a term associated with statistics is not obvious to most people, it should be explained. For instance, what does US News' peer assessment score refer to? That needs to be explained. But do we need to list the peer assessment scores of every other UC school? No. That's silly. UCRGrad 01:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea: Let's compare the peer assessment score to USN&WR's average, in addition to or instead of other UCs. That'll give an impression of how UCR ranks in that regard among national universities in general. Sure, it doesn't rank too highly in the august company of other UCs, but how does it fare in the greater scheme of things? szyslak (t, c, e) 12:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the records, REFERENECES WERE INCLUDED in my most recent update of my article. PLEASE READ carefully instead of reverting back to the old POV version of UCR. Next time, try not to let blind hatred of your alma mater cloud your judgment. Teknosoul02 02:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... is a false dichotomy

In and of themselves, adding a "positive" fact is not sugar-coating, and adding a negative fact isn't always bad-mouthing UCR. Let's not lose sight of what's important in the long run: ensuring this article is neutral, verifiable and free of original research. szyslak (t, c, e) 12:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. I didn't say that adding "positive" fact was sugar-coating. Sugar-coating is adding unnecessary positive context to negative statistics.Insert-Belltower 13:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of recent accusations I and I-B have been uncivil, I think it's important to note that opposing editors have made far worse comments than we have. Teknosoul02 attempted to delete these comments he made after I reported him to admins, but I think it's important that they remain such that we can fairly evaluate offenses made by all sides. Here they are:

Teknosoul02 wrote: Lisren dips*it, you don't know what you're talking about. DON'T YOU EVER INSULT MY ALMA MATER. THIS HAS GONE TOO FAR, A$$HOLE. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO INSULT RUTGERS, ONE OF THE FINEST INSTITUTIONS IN THE NATION. Considering Rutgers is virtually one of the top public schools in the ENTIRE EAST COAST (outside of UNC-Chapel Hill and UVa, and UNC tends to be attract more applicants from the south than the east), you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about insulting Rutgers.

Teknosoul02 wrote: Further, I still maintain that UC Riverside is a better school than what you make it out to be. Yes, I know that it has its problems, but the context I have used is justified. - Teknosoul02 wrote: and I have news for you UCRGrad, most of the UC schools (excluding Berkeley) are virtually unknown to the people in the East Coast. And in the East, the University of southern California goes under major derogatory names including "University of Second Class," "University of Second Choice," "University of South Central", etc. (I have absolutely no intentions of insulting the UC schools or USC, I know they are fine institutions but UCRGrad is being a pr*ck for insulting Rutgers.)

Teknosoul02 wrote: And i don't give a s*it if you think Rutgers sucks b/c it's ranking is "low" in the US News Rankings. The US News Rankings are FRAUDULENT. There, I said it. Only superficial people actually give a damn about those stupid rankings. Unlike them, I know there's more to life and getting a good education than abiding by those stupid US News and Fraud Rankings. If you live and die by these rankings, you have serious issues. UCRGrad 03:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I said the above things out of complete anger and emotion. Maybe you should be a little more receptive the next time you interact with other editors. Maybe you should also spend more time working with others to make the article NPOV instead of making swipes at my alma mater. Teknosoul02 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also made an effort to delete all the offensive remarks I made and I would prefer that we perhaps move on for this. I think I'm being very fair for asking you to apologize for making swipes towards my alma mater. After all, I apologized for my temper. Teknosoul02 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, you made unwarranted and unjustified offense remarks with copious profanity and obscene words. This is indisputable. I think that it would be gracious of you to offer an unconditional apology, but to attempt to lie and blame ME for instigating all of this, is preposterous. I stand behind the truthful statement I made about Rutger's reputation in California. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to type the words "sh*t" and "f*ck." UCRGrad 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRGrad, I'm not defending what Teknosoul wrote because they were clearly uncivil, but he did attempt to remove his comments from this page after they had only been up for less than an hour. In anycase, this wasn't the appropriate place to post this as it has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Next time when you have personal issues with another user, take it to your own user talk pages and not the article talk page. As stated on WP:TPG:

"A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages."

What you've posted has nothing at all to do with the article in question, so again, that's what user talk pages are for. Also, regarding your constant use of bolded text, also from WP:TPG

"Avoid markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force through Italic text, Bolded text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!!"

I hope that in the future you'll be more inclined to follow official Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. --WHSTalk 03:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you decide to pull up WP policy on markup guidelines, rather than the strict policies on using profanity and personal attacks. UCRGrad 03:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't need to pull up WP policy on personal attacks. It was obvious that both of you committed them. Also, I mentioned in my statement that Teknosoul's comments were uncivil. Still, other editors using profanity doesn't give you the right to start breaking policy either. --WHSTalk 04:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? And what personal attack did I make? If you think I made one, feel free to copy it here. When you realize that I didn't, then I will await your apology. UCRGrad 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were clearly baiting him by making disparaging remarks about his alma mater, which incidentally was both OR and likely untrue. Regarding your request for an apology, I'll give you one when you give me one for saying "really don't have any affiliation or knowledge whatsoever about UC Riverside". Anyway, as I've already mentioned, this really doesn't belong on the talk page of the article. --WHSTalk 04:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you made an unwarranted and unjustified remark about Rutgers. I could turn it around and make the same argument that no one made you say those remarks about Rutgers' "unknown" reputation in California. And quite frankly, you're lying by claiming that you aren't instigating this rather ugly argument. You know very well I went to Rutgers. You know very well that I was (admittedly) attempted to show that UCR isn't as bad as perceived and though my comparison of UCR to Rutgers wasn't the best analogy, my whole point is that both are still very decent universities. Not perfect, but UCR in this case still offers a good education and I attempted, throughout my edits of the UCR article, to show that the school has its merits (despite being the lowest ranked school in California). Even if you truly believe what you say about Rutgers, you were not at all sensitive nor respectful of how others might take your opinion. I sincerely apologize for subjecting you to all my profane remarks, but you know very well that you did instigate them. You can argue all you want that I didn't have to use such language, but you know deep down that you were the one that fired the first shot. I merely fired back. Teknosoul02 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Rutgers (like most lower-ranked east coast schools) is not well-known in California. I'm sorry you are offended by this statement, but it's true and no amount of profanity/obscenity is going to change that. Secondly, I'm quite appalled that you do not realize that nobody forced you to respond in such an uncivil fashion. When you read Rutgers' ranking in US News, did you send them a profane letter as well? UCRGrad 03:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again UCRGrad, nice job taking swipes at Rutgers. A school ranked in the 60s hardly constitutes a "low ranking". Especially considering that there are some 248 universities that are ranked as "National Universities" per US News.

Why are you doing this (you know you're taking swipes at me, but you refuse to admit it)? Could you please just stop this!!! This is really nauseating; it's like you enjoy doing this and that you're proud of putting others down b/c they went to a "lower-ranked" college (a school in the mid to high 60s hardly constitutes a "lower-ranked", especially when there are a considerable amount of national universities ranked lower than Rutgers. And they can all offer a fine education even if their rankings aren't the most impressive. And Rutgers IS ranked higher than UCR, but doesn't that mean that Rutgers is necessarily superior to UCR b/c UCR may have advantages Rutgers doesn't. Likewise, a higher ranking in the US News rarely correlates to monetary and personal success.

What is your problem? Did going to UCR really affect your mindset? (not a personal attack, this is a legitimate question). Teknosoul02 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this: Do you agree or disagree with the statement that Rutgers University is not well-known in California? Furthermore, do you agree or disagree with the statement that Rutgers has a similar peer assessment score to UCR according to US News?? UCRGrad 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any further comment from either of you to the other in the next 24 hours will be met with a 24 hour time out. As I said on one of your talk pages, it's not up to me to allocate blame. But it has to stop. If you keep going, you will not only receive whatever blocks are necessary to stop you in the short-term; you'll ultimately face Arb.Com. I suggest that over the next 24 hours you both contribute elsewhere, avoid each other, and try to work out how you can be cooperative with each other in the future. Metamagician3000 04:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that Technosoul02 has incited conversation with his initial hostile language, and I think that it warrants an appropriate punishment. There was no excuse for his comments here. Insert-Belltower 13:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's quite enough blame to go around for all involved, past and present. I also think this is being addressed on the involved users' Talk pages and should remain there and not here. We've got enough things to squabble about here without dragging in outside issues. :) --ElKevbo 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant (and outdated) image is to be removed

I removed that image because it is an old construction photo of the commons. A new one (which I took last time I visited the campus), correctly shows the latest status. And does not need an enlarged version of the same site.

The photo you uploaded shows a DIFFERENT part of campus. Hence, your photo does not supercede mine. THanks. UCRGrad 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Severe" in article shows bias; needs to be removed

If reader chooses to read the section on Air Pollution, they will be well aware of the severity. Air Pollution by itself as a title is more neutral and more appropriate.

"Severe" is a term that accurately describes the air pollution in Riverside, the WORST in the nation. UCRGrad 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave it up to the reader to decide how bad the air pollution in Riverside is, and how relevant this issue is to the quality of life in the area, instead of having the article lecture to them. szyslak (t, c, e) 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough!

This message is directed at Teknosoul02 and UCRGrad: Either put your differences to an end or take your fight somewhere else. I suggest personal e-mail, so we don't have to listen to you two insult each other. This talk page is not for personal squabbles. It is for discussing the Wikipedia article University of California, Riverside.

Neither of you two are blameless. Teknosoul, it's not cool to scream profanities at another editor, no matter what horrible things you think they've done. UCRG, it's not cool to insult another person's alma mater, no matter what horrible things you think they've done. Cut it out. szyslak (t, c, e) 01:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ ^{a b c} "Best Colleges". Retrieved May 07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help) (registration required)
2. ^ "The Princeton Review: The Best Western Colleges (Page 4 of 5)". Retrieved April 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help) (registration required)
3. ^ "The Princeton Review: America's Best Value Colleges (Page 5 of 7)". Retrieved April 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help) (registration required)
4. ^ "The Princeton Review: Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses". Retrieved April 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help) (registration required)
5. ^ "The Princeton Review: Professors Get Low Marks". Retrieved April 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help) (registration required)
6. ^ "The Princeton Review: Professors Make Themselves Scarce". Retrieved April 27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help) (registration required)
7. ^ "UCOP: France A. Córdova Named UC Riverside Chancellor".
8. ^ "AAAS: AAAS Members Elected as Fellows".
9. ^ "List of Laureates and Universities".
10. ^ "MIT chemistry professor Richard Schrock wins Nobel Prize".