Talk:University of California, Berkeley/Archive 9

Lede content
@ElKevbo @Iseult Coming from editing universities in North America, including those in California, and seeing the above discussion, it might be worth opening an RfC about what is due and undue for the lede. However, something like this [1 ] is a textbook case of WP:BOOSTERISM and should be avoided. GuardianH (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the current version and its sources are appropriate and justified, and don't violate WP:BOOSTERISM due to the usage of "among the top" as opposed to "is the top". The paragraphs following the lede mention very significant scientific discoveries, like the Manhattan project and discover of elements etc, so a simple remark on the universities' research and academic prowess is relative to the following paragraphs. I think a RfC is the best way to solve this. Nightshade2000 (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC about lede content
Would a simple reference to UC Berkeley's scientific/research reputation be acceptable in the lede that precedes a section related to research and historic accolades? If so, are Britannica, the Atlantic, the University of Pennsylvania, and CNBC good publications to use to justify this? 22:58 5 August 2023 Nightshade2000 (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Apparent biased removals of UC Berkeley accolades
This user @elkevbo seems to be removing or downplaying any reference to historical achievements by scholars and researchers at UC Berkeley claiming they’re not well supported enough but then leaving the same kinds of items in the pages for private universities. Would appreciate review by moderators Chrisjb1990 (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to review the current consensus about what Wikipedia editors think is necessary to include information about rankings or prestige in the opening section of articles about colleges and universities. ElKevbo (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed that article you keep linking, and I cannot see how that justifies your constant removal of relevant accolades. The information is not "POV", so it doesn't violate P1 and is explicitly supported by multiple high quality sources thus is compliant with P2 and P3. The edits to the Berkeley article were done in good faith, and use high quality sources. Similarly to the remarks on the "prestige" of Harvard, Stanford, and other institutions articles. You have defended remarks related to prestige in Harvard's article, and some of those sources used to support those remarks also mention Berkeley's prestige. I can see what the previous user is referencing, as it is quite hypocritical to be removing references to prestige at one school while defending it at another, all while the same articles justify claims of prestige at both.
 * I can also see other people have left comments accusing you of unexplained or inappropriate deletion of info surrounding colleges as well as accusations of having a personal agenda. I am referring to-
 * "Removed site as it was a discussion on his talk page and he erased it after mutiple comments of ElKebo's misleading pronouncement he is a scholar and the website promotes a subjective, personal agenda. Please see the -53,000 he received for erasing."
 * as well as
 * "please be careful about your deletion. for example you delete some important information in the introduction which are vital to researchers and students. for instance, having contribution with big companies is very key factor for selecting RIT to apply and study, but you ironically delete it. in addition, it is obvious that RIT is belong to group of institutes of technology in the United States. But, you simply delete this clear information. Are you kidding? " Nightshade2000 (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First, let me declare my affiliation to Berkeley; I'm an alumnus of the institution, as can be seen on my userpage. My attention was brought to this article via this Reddit thread. I'm here to try to smooth things over.
 * I only see one recent (in the last two weeks) removal in the article history; I'd actually concur with that removal, even though the edit adding material was made in good faith. It's not a great quality edit. It did need better sourcing (what was the Oxford UP journal article doing there? I see it has to do with Berkeley in the 60s?) and had grammatical errors. Better to go back to a previous higher-quality (though not necessarily better) state and work from there.
 * That said, I don't quite see the reasoning for removal based solely or in part off of  WP:HIGHEREDREP. I see the consensus from that RfC to be a bog-standard avoidance of WP:UNDUE, WP:PUFF, and so on. The edit in question, I think, doesn't meet that bar for removal.
 * We don't, strictly speaking, have moderators here. This isn't really a forum. We don't have specific report buttons. That said, please note that, by posting to Reddit, you've violated WP:CANVASSING; please don't do that again. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 15:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:HIGHEREDREP's application is limited and cannot be used to justify removal of any mention of high reputation. The current edit is a single sentence that is supported by mutlipe publications. There have been other removals of info beyond 2 weeks ago in which WP:HIGHEREDREP was mentioned. There was also info that I believe to be important and nessicary to the article that was removed. Such as the short list of companies that alums have founded and the deletion of the words "notable" and "scientific breakthrough". In my opinion it isn't a bias POV to label important scientific discoveries as "notable". Also, the issue of having a comment about rank specifically within the first paragraph has been happening for quite a while. Elkev has deleted multiple other edits in which rank was mentioned, not just because of sourcing issues but because "we aren't supported to talk about rank in the first paragraph" in one example, while also defending the usage of the prestige in Harvard's page (look at the first paragraph of Harvard's article). In my opinion, it's a double standard that private schools (like Harvard and stanford) are allowed to include accolades within their beginning paragraph, but when Public schools do so we must bend over backwards to prove what a simple goodle search would tell you. It does not serve or benefit any of the readers to withhold blatantly obvious information due to subjective rules of POV. The fact Berkeley's rank is not mentioned, yet it often ranks among private schools (whos own articles mention rank) is not consistent with the other articles "top" schools have. Nightshade2000 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This will all be much more productive if you can abandon your ridiculous claims that I or other editors are specifically targeting this university or a particular group of universities. It's not true and it continues to border on a personal attack.
 * It would be most helpful if you could address what I have already brought up: Some of the sources you've cited are quite weak for such a strong, sweeping claim. This information is also not well addressed in the body of the article and that's a problem because the lede is supposed to be a summary of what's in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am referencing your previous edits and the reasoning you used to justified them. Are your contributions and edits to the mentioned articles personal? If not, then it's not personal when I dispute them and their reasoning. Some of the reasoning doesn't make sense. Like "we aren't supposed to talk about prestige in the first paragraph". Where is there a rule that says that, explicitly that? If so, many other schools articles are in violation of it. The claim is not "sweeping", it's simple. To be "among" the top schools is far different from claiming to be the best. The claims are supported by numerous well known publications, journels, and books with direct quotes which imply what the claim states. As for the lede, the previous versions do not mention anything outside of the schools location, age, and other basic information. It does not provide an accurate summary of the following paragraphs which describe contributions such as the discovery of chemical elements and entrepreneurship. Noting the schools reputation is important in setting the context and expectation for the following paragraphs. I understand you want to be "productive", but I am unsure how you can label sources from The university of Pennsylvania, the Atlantic, Britannica, and the Washington post that explicitly support the claims as "weak". Some of the same sources are even referenced in Harvard's page to support claims of prestige. If they are weak, then it has implications on other pages as well. Nightshade2000 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I've ever said "we aren't supposed to talk about prestige in the first paragraph." If I have, then that's clearly wrong and out of step with policy and practice.
 * This article, and all other articles, is a work-in-progress. It's not perfect and neither are other articles. But that doesn't mean we stop trying to improve this article.
 * I'll start a separate discussion about the sources below. ElKevbo (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Setting aside your personal attacks, your recent edits are much closer to what we need to support this kind of claim in accordance with WP:HIGHEREDREP. Several of the sources, however, are pretty weak - single-year rankings and ephemeral news articles - and should be replaced with much better sources written by scholars and higher education experts. If this claim indeed fits in the lede then surely you can find suitably strong sources.
 * You also need to take a look at the body of the article to ensure that this discussed there in more detail. The lede is intended to be a summary of the article so we shouldn't have information in the lede that is not discussed in detail somewhere else in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Here are the sources that are in the current version of this article that support the claims of prestige:
 * 1) A 2016 opinion piece in the The Washington Post by Jeffrey Selingo who the newspaper described as "a special adviser and professor of practice at Arizona State University, is the author of Who Gets In and Why: A Year Inside College Admissions."
 * 2) A 2019 CNBC by Abigail Johnson Hess, described by the network as "a Multimedia Reporter for CNBC Make It, Abigail Johnson “AJ” Hess covers the changing ways people learn and work, focusing on higher education, student debt and the labor force."
 * 3) A 2014 journal article from Minerva, a peer-reviewed journal published by Springer and written by Jean-Claude Thoenig and Catherine Paradeise
 * 4) A 2003 report by Gallup written by Frank Newport, one of their senior scientists
 * 5) A 2004 book review in the Journal of American History written by W. J. Rorabaugh
 * 6) An undated table of the top 50 institutions in the Times Higher Education's World Reputation Rankings
 * 7) A 2018 article in The Atlantic by Alia Wong, "a former staff writer at The Atlantic, where she covers education and families."
 * 8) A summary of information about the University of California in the Encyclopædia Britannica

The first, third, and eighth sources are pretty good; I have no notes. The second and seventh sources aren't too fantastic but they're relatively recent news articles in reputable venues by reporters who work the higher education beat so they're alright. The fourth source is 20 years old so not usable for a claim about the university in the present tense. The fifth source is just a book review so shouldn't be cited here at all (although the reviewed book is likely a good source). The sixth source is about 12 years old so it is also too old to cite for a claim about the university in 2023.

Frankly, I recommend just removing the two old sources and the book review and seeing where we stand then.

(I also note that if someone is having to work really hard to find sources to support a claim that is "obvious" and "must be included in the lede" then something isn't going well...) ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Concur with source analysis. I don't see ElKevbo's actions as outside appropriate latitude. Nightshade, if you so choose to continue the line of attack on ElKevbo (which I'd rather you not), do at least the courtesy of providing diffs. I don't like accusations without evidence. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 22:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well. I would like to note that some of the sources I included are the exact same currently being used to justify Harvard's prestige. Its understandable to alter or remove some sources, but it would be unreasonable to completely remove the supported info.
 * I wouldn't label my criticisms as a personals attack as I am merely drawing attention to some previous incidents that resemble the current issue... For example, on Harvard's page, an edit was made by elkev on March 10th 2023 in which the line "one of the most prestigious and highly-ranked universities in the world" was added to the introductory paragraph. I am not objecting to this, and I am sure its well-supported. However, another user removed the edit and said "I'm going to continue maintaining that unless other prestigious universities are updated to reflect similar language, there is no reason why something as subjective as prestige should be mentioned for Harvard." This is exactly my point. There should be no special treatment in terms of describing prestige. This edit was undone and elkev responded "you're welcome to add similarly well-supported statement to other articles but this is the result of many discussions and compromises as extensively documented in Talk; if you object, you need to raise it in Talk instead of edit warring to make a point". This is fair, and we are using the "talk section" now. However, what is not fair is claiming sources are "weak" when I pulled from the exact same sources that are used to justify remarks on Harvard.
 * For Harvard's page, the excerpt in the first paragraph saying "Its influence, wealth, and rankings have made it one of the most prestigious universities in the world." has sources [9] composed of articles and books that rank UC Berkeley highly in reputation as well. The only ones that have general rankings and not just statements from random authors calling Harvard prestigious are these:
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-03-10/harvard-mit-ranked-most-prestigious-universities-study-reports
 * The ranking that the above article cites shows Harvard 1st and Berkeley 4th (Source 6 in the list elkev mentioned): https://www.timeshighereducation.com/Journals/THE/THE/10_March_2011/attachments/THE%20World%20Reputation%20Rankings%20top%2050%20.pdf
 * Another one of the supporting articles for the excerpt is this survey, which has Berkeley as 5th (Source 4 in the list): https://news.gallup.com/poll/9109/harvard-number-one-university-eyes-public.aspx
 * Again, this is not a personal attack. I am just trying to figure out why the same sources are justified and strong enough in Harvards case, but weak in Berkeley's case. Is it not unreasonable to assume a double standard? After all, these are the EXACT SAME sources currently being used to no protest. Nightshade2000 (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nightshade2000 You keep using Harvard's page as a justification for inclusion for the current page. It's incorrect to use another page's material to justify this page's contents, see WP:OTHER. All pages can come to a different consensus regarding multiple topics. GuardianH (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHER describes articles as a whole as opposed to the vetting process for sources. I am merely noting that the sources I used to justify my claim were the same sources used to justify a similar one earlier this year. This isn't about the page as a whole, like WP:OTHER describes but about assessing the quality of sources. If you take issue with the CONTENTS of the sources, that is a different issue. To label these sources as "weak" due to factors like age and publisher means that they are not admissible to any claim, correct? Assuming they are "high quality sources" due to their usage in other articles is merely trusting the judgement of other editors here. Nightshade2000 (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that using Harvard's article as some kind of paragon is not helpful. It was a real slog just to get to where we're at today with the lede of that article so I haven't recently paid too much attention to exactly what sources are being used there right now. But if some of them are weak, too, then they should also be removed or replaced. You're welcome to work on that article, too, or open discussion in its Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I had assumed that sources used in other universities pages were admissible provide they make similar claims in a similar fashion. Nightshade2000 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a completely reasonable assumption that should be correct. But the reality is that this a really large project run almost completely by volunteers with diverse levels of interest, knowledge, and ability. In my experience, there are only a handful of editors who consistently work on different college and university articles and much of our time seems to be spent keeping articles from being abused, intentionally or inadvertently, by vandals, bored students, or well-meaning-but-misguided faculty and staff.
 * Sorry that you've opened up the hood on Wikipedia to find that it's mostly held together with duct tape and bailing wire. :) We welcome your help in improving things if you have the interest and time! ElKevbo (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand, thank you for clarifying. In a previous reply thread, I think Iseult, you, and I established a consensuses that sources 1, 3, and 8 are appropriate for inclusion into the article. I propose we restore the previous section using those sources, then remove all of the sources that do not comply with the consensus. Sound good? Nightshade2000 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You can try it to see how it looks. I think that the current statement might need to be truncated as the current version is a compound sentence with two parts each supported by different sets of references. And we can certainly find better references but let's see how it shakes out before spending time doing that (I can help with that - I probably have some good references in some of the books on my shelves). ElKevbo (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've updated the current statement so that the sentence flows better and I have included the sources that you mentioned! I used the word "among" to avoid claiming a specific rank, while also expressing the quoted information from the sources. Nightshade2000 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Guardian, please refer to the recent replies between elkev and I before removing the section of the article we are working on. I tried to reach out to you via the "talk" page of your profile, but I did not receive a reply. Also, Elkev and I are in agreement that the britannica source is worthy of inclusion. Nightshade2000 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

UCB
Also UCB is an form for addressing the university. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I use that abbreviation myself in my note-taking, but it's not one that's found in any of the sources we've used, or ones recommended by the university, IIRC. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * On the UCs website, they do use "UCB" to refer to this campus within admission/graduation data tables . I've heard most people just say "Cal" (due to the sports logo), or just "Berkeley". But UCB is officially used as well in some instances. Did you want to include that in the lede? If so, I support. Nightshade2000 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that this obscure, rarely used abbreviation belongs in the lead. I lived in the Bay Area for 50 years and attended many events on the Berkeley campus, and have many friends and relatives who were students there. Nobody I know of uses this abbreviation. Cullen328 (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't used the abbreviation outside of texting. But the data tables I linked from UC do use that abbreviation, so it's definitely a clerical thing. Nightshade2000 (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * UC Berkeley expressly covers the issue of how to abbreviate the university's name in its official Web site on the Berkeley brand. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I hadn't seen that page on the topic. Upon seeing that, I agree that we shouldn't include it. There is only one UC campus the starts with a "B" so that abbreviations exclusions from the article shouldn't cause too much confusion if someone come across "UCB". Nightshade2000 (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)