Talk:University of California, Berkeley/Archive 3

Blue & Gold Yearbook
I attempted to add a link to old yearbooks published by UC Berkeley ( http://www.e-yearbook.com/cal ) and it was removed by an editor with a reason given as link spam. I disagree in that these yearbooks are an important resource highly relevant to the topic of UC Berkeley. They have been published by the ASUC since 1875 and in many ways represent the institutional memory of the school. While this is a commerical site that generates revenue, a significant % of the revenue goes to the ASUC. Also, there are other commercial sites on this page (like the link to the Oski mascot site).

It just seems to me that this would more than qualify as a valid link in the "Other" external links section. In fact, I'm going to suggest that the Info_box template for Universities adds an entry for "yearbook".

BTW - I emailed both the editors that removed my edits and neither of them have responded to me... thanks, bryan

PS> I originally submitted this on the UC discussion page but wanted to post it here specifically to UC Berkeley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.39.140 (talk)
 * If you're User:Cbmichael check your talk page. Looking at the content I don't have any more objections to adding it to the external links section, as long as it directs to http://www.e-yearbook.com/cal I see no evident reason to add it to the infobox. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(From UCLA) I'm not sure what the conclusion of this discussion is. While certainly the yearbook is a significant component of Student and University life, it would have less impact in a university that does not have an equally qualified media publication team. I don't have a major qualm with the link in EL, but it just doesn't seem to apply to the whole university on the same level that the staple links (Athletics, Library, Alumni Association, etc.) do. ALTON .ıl  06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's not abundantly clear, this issue has resurfaced. I oppose the inclusion of this link in External links or any other section because the webpage requires registration. The MOS is explicit that such links should not be present unless the webpage in question is the subject of the article. Further, the manner in which the links have been added to multiple articles in the face of opposition with little discussion is very similar to the numerous cases of links added to articles primarily to promote websites that are classified as "link spam" and removed.

I'm more than happy to relent if there is a consensus to ignore the MOS in this case but there should be a very clear consensus to do so. --ElKevbo 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

New images for use here
I just uploaded some of my own photographs under free licenses for use in this article (and elsewhere). If I don't get around to including/replacing old images with these anyone else is welcome to. They are extremely high resolution and high quality. Trisweb 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice. I'd be up for putting the Campanile picture somewhere close to the top, esp. given that the first image of the article is the Evans-Hall-less 1940 image. You should also nominate it as Featured Picture on Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 09:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Which campanile image? They're all campanile images ;-) Anyway I'll use one of them eventually, just have to get around to it. ~ Trisweb 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice pics, but the sather gate one seems very out of place on the left side of the lead section. It's also a general wikipedia guideline to have the very first picture aligned to the right. I think the picture will be much better served in another part of the article.Arcimpulse 18:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and put the sather gate pic in the academics/rankings section, so don't get nervous about its sudden disappearance.Arcimpulse 18:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, thanks for reorganizing :-) Trisweb 21:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sub-titles for history
I realize that sub-titling the history section is probably very non-standard, but it was unreadable without being split up. Either shorten the section and remove the titles, or keep it at its current length with subtitles as I've done. Please don't go back to the solid block of text at its current length.

I vote shortening it without titles for consistency with other articles. Other sections are similarly wordy and need to be shortened. I'll get around to it someday...

Trisweb 10:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, you beat me to it. Arcimpulse 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition of CalTV
Is there a way we can include a description of CalTV, Berkeley's new online TV station? We've been around since Fall 05 and have been gaining popularity on campus. We're funded by the ASUC too. Check out our site at caltv.berkeley.edu or find us on iTunes Music Store (under podcasts).

Anirudhv 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why no editing?
Why are the 'edit' buttons for the UCB page gone? Has someone decided that normal users can no longer contribute? Not in the spirit of this wiki if you ask me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.25.104.111 (talk • contribs).
 * It was semi-protected, but it has been unprotected, so you should be able to edit now. --Ginkgo100talk 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone change the missspelling? Berkely appears in various back-linked pages. Nobody calls it Stanfurd, either... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.253.227 (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NCAA National Championships
I noticed on the NCAA National Championships table, there are sports included like Rugby and Lacrosse which are NOT NCAA, yet they are counted as NCAA National Championships at the bottom. So I think it should either be changed to ALL Athletic National Championships, or those non-NCAA sports should be removed.

70.121.107.180 02:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead section
Hey all, I'm concerned about an by Arcimpulse on 11 February 2007, which completely changed the nature of the lead section. I much prefer the old paragraph summarizing accomplishments by UC Berkeley's faculty in the sciences:

"Berkeley physicists played a key role in developing the atomic bomb during WWII and the hydrogen bomb soon afterwards. The University has managed the nation's two principal nuclear weapons labs (now also used for more peaceful research) at Livermore and Los Alamos ever since. Berkeley scientists invented the cyclotron, discovered the anti-proton, played a key role in developing the laser, explained the processes underlying photosynthesis, isolated the polio virus, designed experiments that confirmed Bell's Theorem, and discovered numerous elements, including Seaborgium, Plutonium, Berkelium, Lawrencium and Californium. Berkeley computer scientists are also credited with creating BSD. But Berkeley faculty have a no less distinguished record in fields outside the sciences as well, including four Fields Medal winners in mathematics, and nine recipients of the prestigious James S. McDonnell Foundation award."

I think this paragraph does an excellent job of impressing upon the reader right away the character of UC Berkeley as a tier-one research university -- quite appropriate for the lead section -- without compromising NPOV at all (after all, it's just a list of things which are true). Indeed it was in full agreement with the wiki Lead Section Guidelines, which makes it confusing to me why it was ever changed in the first place. This paragraph's cousin in the current article, which originated from Arcimpulse's edit on 2/11, reads very poorly in my opinion and doesn't fulfill its purpose nearly as well as its predecessor. I mean no disrespect at all to Arcimpulse, who has made many useful and needed edits.

I propose we reinstate this paragraph, and add to it some of the numerous accomplishments of the humanities faculty, like the Pulitzer Prize winners mentioned currently. I wanted to bring this up in discussion before changing it myself, which I intend to do if your feedback is favorable.

Theytsejam 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I recall, I had quite a difficult time trying to achieve balance in the paragraph. In hindsight, did I take out too much? Maybe. In any case, I've read both versions and propose the following to flesh it out a little more. Arcimpulse 05:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * UC Berkeley was founded in 1868 in a merger of the private College of California and the public Agricultural, Mining, and Mechanical Arts College. Through the efforts of such leaders as Benjamin Ide Wheeler and Robert Gordon Sproul, it had, by the 1950s, established itself as a premier research university. Scientific discoveries made by Berkeley investigators include: the anti-proton, the Calvin cycle, and the isolation of the polio virus; UC Berkeley scientists also discovered the elements of plutonium, berkelium, lawrencium, californium, and seaborgium. Berkeley scientists played key roles in the development of the atomic and hydrogen bombs and research done at the university has spawned other inventions such as the cyclotron, SETI@home, and BSD Unix. Berkeley faculty have a no less distinguished record in fields outside the sciences, having received Pulitzer Prizes and Nobel Prizes in literature and economics and four Fields Medal winners in mathematics.

Well, it's a start, but I think it still doesn't read well. One of my problems with it is the part "...discoveries made by Berkeley investigators include: ..." The colon and the following list are extraordinarily tacky and sound like something you'd find in a VCR manual telling you what's included in the box. Also, I think the research accomplishments of the faculty deserve their own paragraph apart from information about the founding of the university, and it seems like Sproul's and Wheeler's names are artificially inserted in there. Not to downplay your contribution, but I still fail to see how "balance" was lacking in the original paragraph, or indeed why the original lead section deserved such a massive overhaul, since it seems like you just rearranged and reworded most of it. I would like to revert the structure of the lead section back to the way it was on Feb 24 before you edited it, while keeping your contributions as additions. I will do this when I get around to it. 136.152.146.104 02:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The goal of getting a good lead history section is an admirable one, and I have spent time puzzling over it (and occasionally making edits), too. However, I'm beginning to think it may be a counterproductive (and perhaps impossible) task, mainly because the accomplishments of the university's faculty, researchers and students (not to mention alumni) are truly immense in scope. That makes lists--no matter how well done--seem inadequate at best, and embarrassing at worst [see the comment below by a faculty member (?) about work in computer science & EE and how it differs from the Wikipedia material]. Berkeley isn't just another Tier One American research university--rather, for a very long time it has had pre-eminent R & D in virtually every field of knowledge, and has been one of a *very* small handful of universities in the Americas, Europe, Asia & Africa that shaped and led the academic world. That reality can't be captured in a list, and humility forbids all but the most unabashed boosters from saying it in print. Am I mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.65.76.106 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Computer Science Section
Contributions to computer science section is a bit of an embarrassment. I'm a staff person in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department, and I find the list of of projects to be very unrepresentative of what's happening at Berkeley. At best, perhaps some of these projects could go to UC_Berkeley_College_of_Engineering. In the short term, I propose that the list of projects be removed. In the longer term, perhaps the Contributions to computer science section should go to UC_Berkeley_College_of_Engineering? (I'm not sure about this). Comments? Cxbrx 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say go for it. ~ trialsanderrors 18:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I removed the projects, it really seemed like an arbitrary list. Perhaps there could be a category for UC Berkeley Computer Science Projects or something.  I like how in other parts of this section the projects are listed in context.  There is a place for lists on wiki, but those items just did not fit.  I'm willing to discuss this further though. Cxbrx 03:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I ended up on this discussion page because I saw the Contributions to computer science section, and, like Cxbrx, thought it was kind of ridiculous. Sounds like Cxbrx deleted it, but then someone else put it back. I'm going to delete it again. The length of the section is wildly out of proportion to its importance and relevance to the article.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Colors
Jay Gatsby and I (Ed Hubbard) have been having a sort of slow-motion debate via revert on whether to simply list the school colors as "Blue and Gold" or "Yale Blue and California Gold". I'd like to try and move this debate here to the talk page, so that other people can weigh in, and perhaps Jay can explain in more detail than possible in an edit summary box his rationale for preferring the simpler "Blue and Gold." So, now the question is, why does Jay want to insist on less specific, less official information? Does he feel that choosing "Yale Gold" is somehow beneath Berkeley? Does he feel that blue is blue, and it doesn't matter what shade? If that were so, then what about other schools with nominally the same colors? I note, too, that every time he changed it in the box, he left it as "Yale Blue and California Gold" in the text. Perhaps Jay feels that it just looks cluttered to have that much text in the small box? Jay, let's not continue a revert war. What is your motivation here? Edhubbard 12:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Originally, an IP user changed the box to state "Yale Blue and California" Gold, which Jay Reverted without comment.
 * 2) I reverted to the previous version, and pointed towards reference 26, which was also used in the body of the article as a reference for the school colors being "Yale Blue and California Gold."  However, I admit that I didn't check the reference, and assumed that it was correct, given that it was in place as a reference for this statement.
 * 3) Jay reverted again, and correctly noted in his edit summary that the existing reference only stated "Blue" and "Gold".
 * 4) I then went and found an official UC website, which indicates in no uncertain terms that the colors are "Yale Blue and California Gold."  I chose an official website since there are many other sources which state the same thing, but it is possible that they got their information from wikipedia, and therefore may not be independent.  An official *.berkeley.edu address means that it is independent, and as noted at the bottom of the page, is copyright of the UC Regents (i.e., authoritative).
 * 5) This is when I feel things went south, as Jay then reverted both my edit with the more appropriate reference and the "Yale Blue and California Gold" stating in his edit summary "anyway, blue and gold is not incorrect..." Note that by reverting here, he also reverted the more appropriate reference to the text, which also states "Yale Blue and California Gold" which he did not change.
 * 6) I disagree with his claim that "it's not incorrect".  Blue and Gold are equally well the colors of UC Berkeley, UCLA, Notre Dame, and many other universities.  However, Yale Blue and California Gold are the specific, exclusive colors of UC Berkeley.  A quick look at the UCLA colors show that they are lighter than the Yale Blue which is used for Cal.  In addition, you will see that the UCLA page lists their school colors as "True Blue" and Gold, presumably to distinguish from Cal's Yale Blue and Gold.
 * I would stick with Blue and Gold in the infobox and elaborate on that in the text. Note that the style guide doesn't mention Yale/California, and especially it allows a variety of shades. The Blue used currently is also not the same as Yale Blue. ~ trialsanderrors 18:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree in general, but I vote "Yale Blue" and "California Gold" the info box. I do believe the original color was definitely Yale Blue, and there are several university sources for that as Ed noted. In addition, I think that "Blue" alone is not descriptive enough, nor would be "Navy" or "Dark Blue" -- it's closest even in its current form to "Yale Blue" and has historical importance as well. I think perhaps the revert war is a misunderstanding that "Yale Blue" is somehow meant as a prank from the ivy league... when in fact it's the true color. Trisweb 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any question about the historicity of the "yale" and "california" modifiers. I just don't see any evidence that they are still in use. There is nothing on http://identity.berkeley.edu and the total number of usages of yale blue/california gold is dwarved by the usages of blue and gold. From my understanding the yale/california usage is antiquated and this should be explained in the text. ~ trialsanderrors 17:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "out-of-date"ness could be explained if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the original color was in fact Yale Blue, and the color itself hasn't changed since, so it happens to still be Yale Blue, even if everyone just calls it 'blue'. Personally I think 'blue' is so general that we can't use it; the color is not simply 'blue', it's more accurately a navy or dark blue, or most accurately, Yale Blue. It's just being descriptive and accurate, I don't see any problem with that. ~ trisweb (Talk) 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing; based on Google search links you give, I'm even more inclined to keep it Yale Blue. The results citing "Yale Blue" are more historical and accurate regarding the colors (more "encyclopedic" if you will) and those with simple Blue and Gold are more colloquial. It should be recognized that Yale Blue and California Gold are simply more accurate, more descriptive forms of Blue and Gold, and I stand strong that we should use them to show the official colors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trisweb (talk • contribs) 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Section on controversies
I would like to start a section called either criticism of UC Berkeley or controversies, and begin with the third part of Grey Brechin's book Imperial San Francisco and include nuclear weapons, biotechnology, the Memorial staduim issues etc. someone deleted my first shot at it and I recognize it was too opinionated. is there any way you defenders of this page could stop arguing about colors and discuss the need for a section on controversies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.97.68 (talk)
 * If you have the sources go right ahead. But if all it says is "some people claim professors don't care about teaching" that's not a section on criticism. You should also sign your talk page posts using four tildes: ~ . ~ trialsanderrors 20:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

what should we name it? Criticisms? Controversies? 67.101.97.68 00:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. you should stop hiding behind aliases. My name is Hank Chapot, I am a UC Gardener, Central campus67.101.97.68 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hank, aliases are a good way to identify a person online. We're not hiding! I'm Tristan Harward, a UC Berkeley graduate and resident of Berkeley. We just like to have some identifier other than "67.101.97.68", if you just add your name that will work fine :-) Trisweb 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Though important, these sections are always a breeding ground for edit wars. I can't say I know how to deal with this. Relatively few people both care about the controversies and can write about them objectively. If you want to try at it, may you be one of those who succeed.. And I agree with Trisweb's advice--start with something documented where you can quote publications for their opinion. I'd also suggest not doing it about issues that are common to all US public research universities. When I first came to WP, I used only my acronym; I soon learned to give my name on my user page, but to maintain continuity I'm stuck with the acronym and I think they can help discussion by giving some air of impersonality. We're debating the issues, not each other. But numbers are way too impersonal. I'm David Goodman, and I received my graduate degree at UCB in the 60s, which I think of as Berkeley's golden age. DGG 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert war over the Seal

 * Image:Ucb logo.png #1
 * Image:University of California, Berkeley seal.png #2
 * Image:Ucbseal 540 139.png #3

This is a discussion thread for the revert war over the Berkeley seal in the infobox. Please discuss; we'll form a consensus or vote and then change the seal. Personally I prefer the more vibrant yellow seal, regardless of the Pantone conversion from the original EPS. The official site that was taken from also (I believe) contains the official RGB colors to be used, so let's use those right? Also, the blue and white seal is atrocious. Please discuss further and we'll decide... ~ trisweb (Talk) 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternatives added. ~ trialsanderrors 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm indifferent between the #2 and #3 colors. #2 doesn't really work well on my monitor, but if the identity guys say those are the colors to go by then well ok. I'm not endorsing the homespun design of #2 though, it's clearly filled in with paint tool and goes against the guidelines. So if anything we should alter #3 to match the web colors. ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is an issue. I didn't find official RGB hex values on the website. So, I used the Eyedropper Tool on the GIF from the website to learn its RGB values, then I carefully applied them to the vector file. I see only two choices: use the file I uploaded or use the low quality GIF provided on Berkeley's website. Look at http://identity.berkeley.edu/dl_web.html and you will see the image I uploaded looks just like the ones there, only its higher quality. Which seal's colors you think are prettier is irrelevant. Punctured Bicycle 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me, I agree. I vote #2. ~ trisweb (Talk) 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * #2 - Identity manual says that and the second one is in the official colors, and quote "Do not substitute colors or rearrange the order of the colors". (Both need FU Rationales!). ALTON .ıl  04:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture references
I'm pretty sure that DiCaprio's character in Catch Me If You Can pretends to have a law degree from Harvard, not Berkeley. I distinctly remember the degree says "Universitas Harvardiana." Am I wrong? Wercloud 17:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

-wasn't that his degree from med school from Harvard and law school from berkeley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.117.231 (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

edit: Frank's doctorate degree says "Universitas Harvardiana". But shortly after it shows his degree on the wall he is eating dinner with Brenda and her family he states (pretends) that he got his law degree from Berkeley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.179.125 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

--You might want to watch the film again: The De Caprio character (Frank Abegnale) says he went to law school at Berkeley, which turns out to be the alma mater of the Martin Sheen character, his prospective father-in-law. The Sheen character then quizzes De Caprio (Abegnale) about a teacher he had in law school at Berkeley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.162.217 (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget The Graduate, which has the Ali McGraw character as a student at Cal. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Names: 3rd paragraph proposed for deletion
I would agree with the majority here as a Berkeley alumni that "UC Berkeley" or "University of California, Berkeley" refers to our campus in academics, whereas "Cal" is what we referred to as our sports programs.

I'd like to propose a deletion of the 3rd paragraph under the "Names" section. The paragraph discussing our campus' designation of athletics as "Cal" vs. academics as "Berkeley" seems somewhat fuzzy. The term "mild sniping" sounds rather POV. To make that point, the first sentence refers to some chancellor at CSU Chico making some random general statement.

In addition, the insertion that "some charge" that Berkeley "depreciates" the sports programs for other schools is vaguely supported by some random editorial at UCLA's Daily Bruin newspaper (which by the way, is no longer accessible). The general assertion that this paragraph attempts to prove is not supported by any evidence and adopts a somewhat partisan tone (perhaps a non-UC Berkeley supporter)? I don't think that a random student paper reporter's editorial at UCLA's paper should constitute the definitive authority that we should rely upon to solidly demonstrate that this assertion is widely recognized by the public, if at all.

In any case, the language and the references in that paragraph do not support the general inclusion in this article. Does anyone have objections or comments--if not, I'll assume it's fine and delete the paragraph and broken links. Azntokki 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki
 * Support The whole section could probably be re-factored and linked to the University of California article. Amerique dialectics 00:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Amerique: can you refactor and link the 3rd paragraph? I see that you undid my deletion of the article--I don't quite understand why you reverted my edit, if you agreed with my reasoning. Please explain or edit accordingly. Thanks. Azntokki 03:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki
 * That wasn't me. It was an anon. If he comes back try dropping an inquiry on his or her user talk page here: . Best, Amerique dialectics 04:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can't tell what happened there, but it wasn't me or the anon. Amerique dialectics 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cal logo deleted due to copyright
FYI - I got the message on my talk that a bot has deleted the Cal logos due to copyright issues (rightfully so? I'm not sure). In any case, is there a way we can use a version of the logo under fair use, or do we just leave it out? I have removed it from the infobox for now. trisweb (Talk) 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP has gotten more fascist with copyright these days. But any single instance of a copyrighted image file qualifies as fair use per WP guidelines and policy, provided it has source info (generally a URL to the source page of the image) and an explicit "fair use rationale" attached. Amerique dialectics  21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's one now and it looks fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.163.205 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization
I think this article needs significant reorganization and rewriting... it's POV in many ways (as to which subjects are covered) and not well organized. I'm not up to the whole task, but will help as much as I can. Let's discuss the issues and the best way to proceed. trisweb (Talk) 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold! I'm currently involved in a very long term project of getting the UCR article to  FA, but can offer any advice or opinions as it were.  Amerique dialectics  21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject University of California
Several editors are organizing a WikiProject to better organize articles related to the University of California. A preliminary draft is available here. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:University of California. szyslak 21:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To Fecker4 Re: Non-noteworthy people at Berkeley
I noticed your edit-war and I doubt that you are ever going to be able to keep this list posted on the University of California, Berkeley page. I have been a graduate student at Berkeley for 5 years now and I have never heard of these people, despite the fact that I am on campus all the time.

I am assuming that you are just listing the random crazy people who yell about things near Sproul Hall and Sather Gate etc. You have to understand that crazy people are a phenomenon at almost all universities to some extent - because a few students will actually stop and listen - thus giving the crazy person the attention he or she desires. The fact that you want to add these people to the article shows that you personally find these types of people fascinating - and that's okay - but I personally don't know of anyone who knows these people by name (or who stops to listen to them for that matter).

One article in the Daily Californian or the Berkeley Daily Planet is also not enough to claim "notability". There are full professors, widely published etc. at Berkeley who do not have their own Wikipedia entries, and yet their work impacts and influences people around the world - two professors I can think of off-hand are Anne Middleton Wagner and Thomas Laqueur. Both of these professors are brilliant scholars who have changed the face of their respective fields (art history and history) in profound ways. To think that someone like a local "Carrot Top" who caught your attention while on your way to class is notable enough to include in an article about a 140-year-old esteemed intitution is just wrong. I hope you can understand why this is the case.  S a u d a d e 7  17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

UC Berkeley status as University of California flagship campus
As a Cal alum and former employee at Berkeley's UARS, we routinely refer to Berkeley as the University of California's "flagship" campus. This merely connotes the fact that Berkeley was the first, oldest and founding campus of the UC system. This fact is widely recognized by academicians, staff, alumni and by every UC systemwide present since UC started. A Google search typing in "UC Berkeley" and "flagship" will support this fact. I've added this language to this page, but some individuals without explanation continue deleting this language upon every edit. What do most people think--should we retain "flagship" language to describe Berkeley's origin and status in the UC system? I think it's informative and a verifiable fact, but the two individuals who keep reverting any mention of this fact have given no explanation as to why they do so. Any thoughts? Aznusmcmarine (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine
 * It's very simple. WP:Peacock. Edhubbard (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would disagree, since it is does not fit within the scope of what is considered a "peacock" term in the definition provided by Wikipedia. The term "flagship" is an objective fact, and not an unqualified opinion that is subjective.  Under the wiki definition of "flagship," it refers to the first campus of an educational system, which Cal happens to be.  This is an objective term and is a mere fact.  I will add sources to demonstrate that this is so, since this will be in the lead paragraph.  If others have opinions, please cite so. Aznusmcmarine (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine
 * Flagship certainly means more than just first. If all you wanted to say was "first" that is both objective and easily verified. Flaghip also means best, most central and most important.  As a Cal alumnus myself, I would personally agree that it is the best, but this is a value judgment, and is most certainly a peacock word. I am sure that others will continue to revert it, and at this point, you are cleary in violation of the three revert rule, which can lead to you being blocked by an admin for edit warring. Edhubbard (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your point that it is a peacock word. Flagship campuses have a meaning and history behind them.  It's not just puffery.
 * That said, I'm unsure about about the designation in this case. The UC regents seem inconsistent in applying the term, preferring instead to advance the notion that there are many high quality programs and universities in the UC system.  (As opposed to the University of Maryland @ College Park which has been officially designated the "flagship" university of the UMD system by the Maryland legislature.)  It may need to be characterized more specifically for who considers Berkeley the flagship.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The link you provide, includes a nice quote by former U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Robert Berdahl himself as to why "flaghsip" is a peacock word and why the inclusion of "flagship" is bound to be contentious. He states "...those of us in "systems" of higher education are frequently actively discouraged from using the term "flagship" to refer to our campuses because it is seen as hurtful to the self-esteem of colleagues at other institutions in our systems. The use of the term is seen by some as elitist and boastful. It is viewed by many, in the context of the politics of higher education, as "politically incorrect."" (italics added). I repeat, "elitist and boastful".  This is the very definition of a peacock word. I don't know how much clear that can be. Edhubbard (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ps: I think that part of the inconsistency in the use of the term by the U.C. Regents is due to the political incorrectness of the term, but I think that there is another part, which is that the U.C. system is quite different from many other state systems, with other first-rate schools, like UCLA and UCSD, that, aside from the distinction of being first would be capable of laying claim to being flagships. Part of this might be related to the sheer size of California compared to many other states; we can have several top-notch research institutions widely enough spaced that they don't necessarily draw on the same limited pool of resources, factulty and students.  Anoter part of it, however, is an explicit consequence of the Clark Kerr plan that Berdahl talks about in his speech, linked from the flagship campus page, and which repeats several times that the U.C. system is not quite the same as other systems in which the "flagship" term has been used. Edhubbard (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That some see a term as "elitist and boastful" does not intrinsically make it either wrong or a peacock term. For example, I think the expectation that English knights should always be introduced as "Sir So-and-so" is elitist, but the terminology still carries specific meaning.  For example Alec Guinness and Ian McKellen are both introduced by their royal titles in their articles.  That's why I used the UMD example above.  In that case "flagship campus" is literally a designation written in law, and so it is a simple matter of fact and a sensible description regardless of how it might be precieved by others.  I am willing to consider that UC Berkeley may be meaningfully different case based on the facts surrounding the UC system.  However, I cannot agree that "flagship" is an intrinsically biased or unacceptable term.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I dug around the UC system website for any instance of the term "flagship," and found this article which supports a notion of "multiple flagships:" . The only substantial use of the term I could find on the UCB site is Berdahl's convocation address... I think "flagship" is purely a descriptive term and not some legal definition in this case. (But i could be proven wrong if somewhere the California legislature actually did say "Berkeley is the flagship of the UC system" in state law.) While the term is of course accurate in describing Berkeley in any case, and I actually don't mind it much, there are potentially less controversial ways of saying the same thing. Amerique dialectics 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel strongly that "flagship" status is a simple matter of fact and should be stated as such. The flagship campus of a state university system is the oldest, the one from which the rest of the system grew. It's much like calling William and Mary a "colonial college," or Yale an "Ivy League school." These are objective facts, even though they are facts that are often felt to convey prestige.

Often, we are talking about a qualitative difference, not just a few years Princeton-versus-Penn-type difference. Often the flagship campus will have been established during the huge wave of university foundings in the decades following the Civil War, while the other campuses of the university system are, perhaps, former state teachers' colleges or mining-and-agriculture schools that got upgraded, perhaps in the 1950s or more recently.

Often the flagship school will not only be much older, but also much larger and much better funded than the others. It will have an aura of superiority.

In recent years schools that are not flagship schools have become envious of that aura, and in some cases have even asked the state legislature to confer the word "flagship" on them, so, yes, the word now has a sort of dual meaning: a factual meaning and a vacuous peacock meaning. This peacock meaning is very new, by the way. It completely took me by surprise. I'd like to see some references bearing on whether the meaning of the word has now really changed, so that "flagship" just means "good."

I'm not researching this now, but for purposes of argument let's assume that 1) Berkeley is the original and oldest campus of the University of California system, and thus is "the" flagship campus in the formerly accepted meaning of the word; 2) the State of California has officially designated multiple campuses of the system as all being "flagship campuse." In Lake Wobegon all the children are above average; in California, it seems, all universities are the oldest. I suppose what they hope to imply is "we love them too and will in future fund them just as generously."

If these assumptions are correct, then we shouldn't call Berkeley "the" flagship campus, but should use some kind of neutral language like "Berkeley is the oldest of a number of campuses which, in year so-and-so, were officially designated by California as 'flagship campuses.'" Dpbsmith (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, let's go through the criteria for "flagship" as objective. On the oldest score, Berkeley certainly *is* the oldest, and first, since it was founded in 1861.  The second UC campus was UCLA which was founded in the 1920s.  In terms of most prestigious, it is the number one public university in the country, and by various rankings is ahead of the other schools in the UC system, but some of those "lesser" schools rank ahead of the majority of the universities in the US (UCLA, again and UCSD).  Finally, in terms of money and funding, these days, the UCSD campus may actually bring in more money than the Berkeley campus, in part due to the licensing agreements and spin-offs from the high-tech and bio-tech industries that UCSD has spun off... It's hard to be absolutely certain with this, since it depends on exactly how the numbers are calculated. In any case, the other schools are certainly on par with Berkeley in some of these other measures of prestige and money, and it only the earlier founding of Berkeley that makes it the "flagship" and if this is all that counts, then "earliest" is sufficient to convey the factual status without entering into the use of a "elitist and boastful" word (as Robert Berdahl himself called it).  Edhubbard (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur with Edhubbard. Given the politics behind the "flagship" designation and the relative status of other UCs, "founding campus of the UC system" might be less controversial while still conveying the same or a similar sense of grandeur. Amerique dialectics 16:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Berkeley alum, but I generally refer to Berkeley and UCLA together as the flagship campuses of the system. I agree that it's basically a peacock term. UC Berkeley has many objective claims to fame. It doesn't need to puff itself up artificially with words like "flagship."--76.167.77.165 (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)