Talk:University of California, Berkeley

Scholarship
Scholarship information should stay. Summerdays1 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A vague statement presented without context is unlikely to make sense much less convince anyone of anything. ElKevbo (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're vague. Summerdays1 (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Levering act of 1950
I'm disappointed there is no mention to this fact that has quite a high encyclopedical and storical relevance. 81.56.24.219 (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024
Reference 160 has outdated link, it is currently at avid.wiki/Chernin_Entertainment. The wiki moved to Wikiforge in the summer of 2023 as an explanation for the domain name change and reason to edit. Timpbskid23 (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've replaced it with an article from Variety (magazine). Even if the link didn't go dead, it's still a community wiki, which probably isn't a reliable source per WP:UGC. Liu1126 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024
A comma should follow “University of California, Berkeley” if it’s written out in running prose; see MOS:GEOCOMMA. I see this is missing in the lede sentence at least. 103.203.255.65 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)\
 * ✔️: I couldn't find any instances in the body text but I did find two or three uses without the comma in the citations, which I fixed. 〜 Askarion   ✉  14:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

File request on Commons
See: COM:R § Front doors of the Berkeley SCET on Commons. I'm thinking about adding info about the Sutardja Center to this article or Berkeley Engineering, and the requested image would be good illustration. If anyone is near the area, snapping a pic and uploading would be greatly appreciated! BhamBoi (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Lede additions must be verified, sourced, and adhere to due weight and lede policy
MadMedeiros Your additions to the lede of the article have given it an expansion, but much of the statements made have been done without first ensuring that they are appropriately verified, sourced, and adhere to the policies regarding due weight and article ledes. For example, many of your changes added information to the lede that were unverified in the body, giving WP:UNDUE weight to the information, even if it is sourced. You might also want to review WP:BOOSTER regarding similar issues and tone, along with the prevailing consensus on information regarding reputation, prestige, and rankings. GuardianH (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Supreme Court Ruling Enshrines UC Berkeley Authority over Development
"On March 11, 2022, state legislators released a proposal to change CEQA to exempt the university from its restrictions.[83] On March 14, Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law.[84] On June 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of California upheld UC Berkeley's exemption from CEQA. Berkeley has continued to face a housing shortage.[85]" 2600:1700:488:C380:55C6:FDC0:10EB:A918 (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 00:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It means that after 50 years Berkeley will finally be rid of that eyesore People's Park (Berkeley). Not something that belongs in the main article for a 150-year-old institution. EEng 01:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede: "It has been regarded as one of the top universities in the world."
Nightshade2000 and ElKevbo, this lede statement still falls short of WP:HIGHEREDREP, namely that it continues to lack due weight, particularly in the body which it does not appropriately reflect. For one, the statement is not verified in the body, where neither of its two sources are present. We do have a Reputation and Rankings section, but the global reputation is limited to just one paragraph under Past rankings and two bullet-points for rankings. We get plenty of rankings, but these do not provide the extensive coverage as to prominently place in the lede that Berkeley "has been regarded as one of the top universities in the world." Like I pointed out in Stanford University, the statement jumps the gun on relevance; we should have multiple paragraphs expounding much greater on reputation, but there is only miscellaneous rankings under the section.

Also, there hasn't been an adequate consensus established regarding its addition, like would otherwise be described by WP:HIGHEREDREP. There should be expansions done on the article before the statement is added. GuardianH (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Guardian,
 * I disagree that the ledes contents are irrelevant, as the third paragraph of the article mentions the public ivy and information that supports the statement (such as the size of the university library, which is often considered when ranking universities). In addition to the third paragraph and the examples in 13, multiple sources throughout the article comment on the universities rank (see sources 28, 29, for example...). Also, the reason why the sources in 13 do not appear in the miscellaneous rankings section is because they are not quantitative rankings at all. Both these quotes acknowledge the rich history and status the university still holds in the public eye. While superficial, that information is still incredibly important in an article about a 100+ year old university.
 * However, after reading through WP:HIGHEREDREP, I do think the wording should be changed for the purpose of explicitly referencing the wording of the supporting material. Instead of has been regarded as one of the top universities in the world I propose "Due to its rich history and numerous scientific contributions, it has been regarded as one of the top public universities in the world.". As the supporting material does not use quantitative metrics to justify the prestige, instead using qualitative data (like history etc) reported in the source articles.
 * I am undoing the removal because, again, please discuss it here and establish consensus before removing/adding what was agreed upon. The previous version was agreed upon here, and we should discuss improvements or disagreements before editing the article. Nightshade2000 (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * None of what you've written above has addressed any of the points I raised, and your proposed change to the sentence is even more unrepresentative and more obviously an abridgment of WP:SYNTH, WP:AESTHETIC, and WP:HIGHEREDREP. Ironically, the onus was originally on you to establish consensus for the change (which you still haven't done), not the other way around — having a tenuous agreement between yourself and one other editor falls short of an established consensus. For the aforementioned and other shortfalls of WP:HIGHEREDREP and WP:UNDUE, tagged for booster. GuardianH (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "The statement is not verified in the body, where neither of its two sources are present."
 * To address this, the sources provided (Selingo and Thoenig) should be incorporated into the body of the article, specifically in the "Reputation and Rankings" section. This will ensure that the lede accurately reflects the detailed content of the article.
 * Proposed Action: Add the following text to the "Reputation and Rankings" section:
 * Selingo, Jeffrey. "Our dangerous obsession with Harvard, Stanford and other elite universities". The Washington Post:
 * "UC Berkeley is mentioned as one of the elite public universities that are the pride of the American higher-education system around the world."
 * Thoenig, Jean-Claude. "Organizational Governance and the Production of Academic Quality: Lessons from Two Top U.S. Research Universities". Minerva:
 * "UC Berkeley is consistently ranked as a top university internationally, recognized for its long tenure in the first decile of various classifications."
 * I understand your concerns about the need for verification within the article body. So we can add these other sources that recognize UC Berkeley's reputation if you think it necessary:
 * Times Higher Education consistently ranks UC Berkeley among the world's top six universities, highlighting its strong global reputation (Berkeley News, 2017, 2018).
 * The Princeton Review also acknowledges UC Berkeley's outstanding reputation. They describe Berkeley as having "great faculty, great research, great classes, and everyone knows it," emphasizing its prestigious standing in academia and the broader educational community​ (The Princeton Review)​.
 * A study in Minerva acknowledges UC Berkeley as a top-ranked university internationally, citing its longstanding reputation for excellence (Thoenig, Jean-Claude).
 * I propose we include these sources both in the lead and within the body of the article, under the 'Reputation and Rankings' section, to ensure compliance with WP and provide a well-rounded view of Berkeley's global standing.
 * "having a tenuous agreement between yourself and one other editor falls short of an established consensus".
 * We can RfC or just discuss it ourselves and figure something out. That one editor and myself were the only ones discussing it at the time... There hasn't really been anyone opposed to the lede (at least not on the talk page) and no one has posted on the original discussion in a while... There isn't really anyone else to talk about it with, so its difficult to establish a large consensus when its pretty much the same 3 or 4 people on the talk page here. Which is fine, so long as we all reach an agreement. Nightshade2000 (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Already there are multiple issues with your proposed changes. Firstly, you misquote both Selingo in The Washington Post and misquote Thoenig in Minerva — none of your two selected quotations are wholly in either of them, and it looks like you just decided to summate and elide portions of the actual texts. Yes, they are supposed to be in the body, where they can provide some actually substantive material rather than just a data hoard of miscellaneous rankings.
 * Secondly, this discussion has been working completely backwards — the statement as it stands was unsupported with neither consensus nor policy from the beginning, and now you're working to try to get a body for a sentence rather than a sentence for a body with the aim of keeping that one sentence regardless. That isn't how ledes are done; you might want to see WP:CIVILPOV. It doesn't help that your edits are, broadly construed, promotional to the university. All of your user edits have been on Berkeley. When asked about a COI with the university, you replied in the negative, but you haven't provided an answer as to what your connection to the university is if you have one. You should clarify what your relationship is to the article subject and whether it would be a conflict of interest. WP:SPA accounts like yours give the immediate impression of advocacy.
 * Thirdly, rankings themselves prove little, and listing them all doesn't actually support the statement, which is why sources similar to Thoenig are so important. You say there hasn't been a consensus, but you still conveniently ignore WP:HIGHEREDREP and haven't stated how exactly the sentence is supported by it. Of course, the fact is that the statement falls short of the stringent requirements outlined by WP:HIGHEREDREP. You are going against the established consensus keeping the sentence in the article; it should be removed and added only when it finally supports the body and has the appropriate representation. Until then, you are trying hard to maintain an undue weight. GuardianH (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

False information on alumni
The alumni section under "Notable People" mentions 14 Fields Medalists, but this is false (that would be literally every (or almost every) American Fields Medalist). Berkeley has produced 2 as alumni, but would count quite a few if you included faculty. FunctionalPhil (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page&#32;or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.   ElKevbo (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Change on the nobel prize number of UC berkeley
According to the official website of UC Berkeley (https://inspire.berkeley.edu/get-inspired/nobels/), there are 55 nobel prizes awarded to Berkeley's faculties and alumni. The current link can't be opened and is not a comprehensive list of Berkeley's nobel winners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1255979u (talk • contribs) 07:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The Nobel site times out, but is that a permanent outage? The UC site lists the 55, while the Wikipedia article linked to in the lead also gives 21. There's quite a difference there. I can't quibble with the UC site, but we could use a more reliable source and should maintain consistency across Wikipedia articles. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The current count listed on the Nobel page also only accounts for university affiliations at the time the award was received. This means alumni, faculty and scholars who may have left Berkeley aren't counted. I remember the Nobel Prize count for Berkeley was as high as 107 on the Wikipedia page before, as it included alumni, former faculty and visiting scholars in the total medal count. There used to be a link that led to a separate Wikipedia page listing all of the affiliated scholars and their connections with the university. Columbia, Princeton and Harvard still have pages like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_affiliated_with_Columbia_University_as_alumni_or_faculty). It appears this is an issue not only on the Berkeley page, but across multiple universities. Btn912 (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)