Talk:University of California, Los Angeles

Ranking information in the lede
An unregistered editor is insisting that the lede of this article include the following phrase: "...is frequently ranked among the best universities in the world by major college and university rankings. "

First, rankings from a single source in a single year cannot possibly substantiate a claim about being "frequently" ranked by "major college and university rankings." Something done once cannot be frequent and single ranking cannot be described as plural. Second, there is a a project-wide consensus about the inclusion of rankings and prestige in the lede of articles about colleges and universities and this single source comes nowhere close to meeting that consensus.

If an editor believes that this kind of information should be in the lede of this article, they are strongly encouraged to review WP:HIGHEREDREP and provide sources that meet that consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Or at least sign up, wouldn't you think? 🤷‍♂️ – AndyFielding (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The mention of UCLA's reputation in the lead section is appropriate pursuant to WP:HIGHEREDREP, which states that "only if a reputation is exceptionally good or bad or disputed is it such an important fact as to be noted in the lead section of an article." UC Berkeley's page mentions its ranking in the lead section, and as UCLA has tied with UC Berkeley as the number one public institution in the US for years, it therefore has an "exceptionally good" reputation worth noting in the lead section. This is supported by the US News and Times Higher Education rankings provided. It is not the case that UCLA's number one ranking has only maintained for a single year. It has been at number one for six years. Other sources can be cited at the end of the claim to substantiate UCLA's reputation, which is by any serious metric, "exceptionally good" (refer to WP:HIGHEREDREP). Geogrk (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I would not object to a brief statement in the lede that complies with WP:HIGHEREDREP by citing the kinds of high quality sources that are necessary to support that kind of statement in the article's lede. In particular, citing a handful of rankings that you personally select to support a broad, sweeping claim is not acceptable; if you think the article needs a broad statement in the lede, you need to provide strong sources that explicitly support the claim. The sources used in the Berkeley article and discussed in that article's Talk page can provide some really good guidance. ElKevbo (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted, I will attempt this later. Thank you. Geogrk (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Greek life and school traditions
This section is unusual for an article about big universities. The contents of the Greek part are unreferenced and since it is just a rote list of various fraternities and sororities without any further detail, I question whether there is any useful information being shared here. The school traditions seem really anecdotal and most of them are unsourced. I propose deletion. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since no one chimed in on this one, I will go ahead and streamline. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yay! I mean, rah! – AndyFielding (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Scandals
There are two sub-sections in the 'History' section about scandals. In other university pages, there's a separate section for university related scandals. So I propose to create a separate section called 'Scandals' and transfer the scandal related contents in that section, instead of putting them in the 'History' section. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That is a very good suggestion. Thank you for the initiative. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No thanks. In general, many Wikipedia editors do not believe that "controversy" sections in articles are appropriate. Our advice for college and university articles recommends that we "place controversies and other events into their proper historical context." That advice also recommends that this kind of information be placed into the "History" section. It's just usually bad practice to divorce controversies from broader context that readers needs to understand them. ElKevbo (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's odd… In WP's bios, you see controversies split off into their own sections all the time. Maybe there isn't as much of a tabloid effect with institutions. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)