Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 1

No title
Please add Notable faculity and alummi

2005 Enrollment figures
I notice that the current student body statistics are from the 2004 year. Anyone have information on the 2005-2006 year and please update it?

Jamie Chung
I see that she was deleted from the notable alumni and students. Why is that? Given that she was cast on the Real World and has appeared on some spin off shows I feel she is definetely worthy of appearing in the notable alumni and students section. As a matter of fact I just decided to add her.

Pictures of Riverside
I think some photos of the Riverside Belltower should be added... which, I'm more than happy to take a few shots of. - Allyunion 08:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That would be great, perhapse a picture of the "C" on Big Spring Mnt. or of the Construction of Engr II -Asiananimal 26 Aug 2004

Link?
Hi I have written an article about Riverside's datamining project assigned by to it by the Department of Homeland Security, on Wikinerds Portal. If you think the information is useful, you can add an external link to the UCR article. If you object, post your comments now. Thanks. NSK 06:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

History
On February 14, 1907, the University of California Board of Regents established an experiment/research station on 23 acres of land on the east slope of Mt. Rubidoux in Riverside, California. The purpose of this research station was to conduct various agricultural experiments such as fertilization, irrigation, and improvement of crops. The laboratory was later moved in 1917 to the west slope of Box Springs Mountains.

The laboratory was referred as the Rubidoux Laboratory and slowly grew in size. When the laboratory celebrated its fifieth anniversary, the laboratory was not a small laboratory, but had grown with several new buildings and usage of its acres for experimental plantings. The laboratory's original two staff personnel had increased to 265 personnel by 1957. In 1961, to reflect the growth of the laboratory, the name was changed to the Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station. At the time, the director was Alfred M. Boyce for which Boyce Hall, home to the Entomology and Biochemistry Departments, is named after.

University President Robert Gordon Sproul persuaded Gordon S. Watkins, former dean of the College of Letters and Science at University of California, Los Angeles, to undertake the organization of a small college of liberal arts at Riverside, California. In 1949, Professor Watkins accepted the job and started five years of planning, faculty recruitment, and building construction. He became the first Chancellor of Riverside campus and presided at the opening of the College of Letters and Science with 131 students in February 1954. (The title Chancellor was formally known as Provost until 1958.)

Still as a draft. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IP information
UCR's IP range is a class B network, with the assignment of 138.23.x.x -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Humor
This whole section was removed. Some of the other UC sites have humor sections, why not Riverside?

Lack of selectivity
UCR no longer accepts all eligible students.


 * I don't know who put this down but what's your source? My source is talking with UC Riverside admissions officials, and newspaper articles from various UC student papers which mention the fact. Aside from not meeting UC criteria, all students who meet the eligibility scale were accepted. Calwatch

It's a fact that UC Riverside is the least selective and has the lowest stats for incoming students of any UC campus. The links to the sources are provided as requested under Wikipedia policy. The changed text became NPOV and so has been changed back to include the negative information about UCR. Calwatch 08:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * University of California Lightbulb Jokes


 * A couple points...

''UCR's enrollment growth is among the the highest of all UC schools. Consequently the school has a greater acceptance rate and a lower average GPA and SAT score for incoming freshmen than any other UC campus. In 2004, UC Riverside accepted 73.5% of incoming applicants [1], the highest rate of any UC school. Riverside generally also accepts students who have been rejected at other UC schools [2], thus leading to the derisive nickname of UC Reject.''


 * The first sentence and second sentence are okay even though they exist more to set up the notion that UCR is somehow bad than the previous edit. Both points were mentioned explicitly before so there wasn't any reason to change them.


 * The rest of the paragraph dwells too much on the supposed inferiority of Riverside in comparison to the other UCs. It is not outright wrong but is stated in a way to bias the reader. Sort of like inserting the fact that Bill had sex with Lewinsky 30 different times in the Clinton article. Should we also be compelled to state that USC rigs its methodology in a way that it can claim a higher SAT average than UCLA? Or that Stanford does a good job in paying Nobel faculty but has yet to produce (to my knowledge) a student that can win one?


 * Theres the subtle hinting that Riverside is well known and defined for accepting students rejected from other UCs (POV)


 * An irrelevent nickname thrown around mainly by yuppie valedictorians, college confidential trolls, and insecure Berkeley students does not belong in an encyclopedia article. At least not in that form.


 * I don't attend nor have I ever applied to UCR. So I'm not here to stoke a wounded ego.


 * Whatever its reputation, it could be argued that UCR has made many contributions and in the big picture is a well regarded school. It might not have the prestige of others but it has done and will do very well perhaps. Reason enough to balance with more positive material

Jarwulf 05:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My friends went on to UCSF, USC, UCLA, UCBerkeley, UCSD and other such schools (admittedly I was not really close to the Berkeley friend). The smartest of them all (at least academically) turned down a kickass fellowship at Caltech to go to UCR. Aside from the weather and crime...plenty of good things about Riverside...


 * But why delete the percentage of admissions? It is a relevant statistic. In addition, it IS well known that UCR accepts ALL UC eligible students, and takes redirected students rejected from other UCs. Ask any California college counselor, or review past statistics or closing dates (until just three years ago, Riverside regularly opened admissions beyond the November 30 deadline, to fill seats in the campus). Personal attacks notwithstanding, I'm reverting the article, with the deletion of the reference to "UC Reject" for fairness purposes. Calwatch
 * The above was not meant as an attack on anybody here. As editors it is our job to provide accurate 'fair and balanced' information not compile the world's most exhaustive list of reasons why UCR is a terrible school.


 * Nevertheless, I've worked out a compromise. The most recent edit leaves most of your changes in place. IMO we've struck a mostly fair balance. If you want to know why I made the changes...ask I'll be happy to explain..Jarwulf 08:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I still think we need to recognize that Riverside does take the scraps from the other UC's. Also, if I was compiling a list on why Riverside is the worst UC, I could go on for paragraphs. Actually, I don't have to, subjective sources like Fiske's Guide and the Yale Daily News Guide to Colleges, as well as objective sources like the College Board handbook (SAT scores, average senior GPAs and SATs, percentage of students completing degree in six years, etc.) I am not quoting at length from the YDN lambasting Riverside's poor location, movie theaters for lecture halls, or lack of any campus life whatsoever, because it is not relevant here in a brief article. Calwatch 07:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No matter how you look at it, 'UC Rejects' is a common joke/reference to UCR. It may be insencetive, but wiki is supposed to be unbiased, no?
 * There are zillions of jokes and references about all the UCs that don't belong on here. We could spend all day filling the encyclopedia up about how UCLA students are considered rude and arrogant or remark at length about Santa Barbara and its connection to STDs. A nickname is not a solid fact or statistic and since it is hostile it will skew the section's tone if it is not in context. If you absolutely cannot live with yourself until you see uc reject in this article split off a criticism section and put it there...Jarwulf 03:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The facts are that UCR has the lowest GPA and SAT averages in the UC system. UCR has the highest admissions rate..that is enough for people to draw their own conclusions. Whether you can consider the students overall as the dregs of the system or there because they have no choice is still a matter of opinion. Many are perhaps, but a lot of others chose UCR for their own inscrutable reasons. UCR takes students rejected from other schools but the same can be said for virtually all colleges. Is this so true for UCR that it deserves to be mentioned explicitly? Maybe, maybe not...in the meantime the facts are there for readers to decide themselves. Jarwulf 03:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well until Merced opens up of course
 * Also the fact that UCR accepts all students that are eligible is already in the article...

"Historically, all UC-eligible students (generally defined as the top 12.5% of all California high school graduates) have been eligible for admission at Riverside. Consequently the school has a greater acceptance rate and a lower average GPA and SAT score for incoming freshmen than any other UC campus. In 2004, UC Riverside accepted 73.5% of incoming applicants, the highest rate in the UC system."

This whole paragraph seems to come from a point of view which is biased against the University of California Riverside. The first sentence conveys the message that EVERYONE can get in to UCR. The second sentence says that only "stupid" people with low GPA's and SAT scores go to UCR. The last sentence once again attempts to reinforce the fact that everyone can get in to this college. What is the point in trying to degrade this institution? I don't see any reason to keep this obviously biased paragraph.
 * Please sign your comments, otherwise it will be harder for us to tell who said what. I agree that it does seem somewhat biased. I was in favor of a more moderate treatment of UCR academics with only the most general analysis and comparison. The more detailed you get the more opinion creeps in. Having said that, the numbers included in the Riverside bashing are, I assume, factual. Unless, he starts posting outright lies I don't see any compelling reason to stop CalWatch from pointing (in a balanced way) out Riverside's generally poor reputation among today's hyperambitious college bound youth.

Jarwulf 01:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And I've think we've put balanced information below. We've said that UC Riverside is highly rated in certain things, and has unique programs that other UCs don't offer. Thus, I am replacing the allegedly "negative" information about UC Riverside admissions. Calwatch 07:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

More Biases
"With the UC Merced beginning operation in 2005, all UC-eligible students will automatically qualify for admission there instead. In addition, growth in Southern California, particularly the Inland Empire, additional facilities, and improved programs in engineering will attract more students to the university, which will in turn make the school more selective. To accommodate the growth in high school students in California, the campus is slated to grow to up to 21,060 students by 2010, and the potential for 25,000 students by 2015."

There are more sentences here which come from a point of view biased against UCR. The first one actually conveys a negative tone towards BOTH UC Merced and UC Riverside. It seems to ACTUALLY state that "well, since UCM will suck even more than UCR, they'll be taking all of the loser applicants that used to be admitted to UCR instead." The second sentence gives the notion that UCR is not already selective. The last says that since high school students will become more numerous in the future, and since UCR accepts everyone, thus, UCR will grow significantly. There is no reason to keep this paragraph.


 * It would probably have been better if you had modified the paragraph instead of completely remove it. You also took out valuable information about the school's growth. Jarwulf 01:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * “Riverside offers a joint medical degree program with UCLA. The first year of medical school is taught in the basement of the Statistics building (UCR), and the second year is taught in a set of trailers on the outskirts of the Riverside campus.”


 * I can see the reasoning for including information about the medical program, but the information about where the classes are taught (“in the basement of the Statistics building” and “in a set of trailers on the outskirts of the Riverside campus”) is unnecessary; unless of course you were trying to show the medical program at UCR in some negative light. Factually, these statements may be true, however both the basement of Stats Building and the trailers are still considered part of the campus, so why does it matter where on campus the classes are taught?  I don’t see a detailed description of where the classes at UCLA are taught.


 * The last paragraph of the "Student Life" section is also biased against UCR. As a UCR student, I have never heard anyone complain about the smog, and it doesn't really affect the lives of very many students. Yes, environment is important, but the apparent purpose the paragraph in question is to basically show how crappy it is in Riverside.  Also, there is no mention of the Student Recreation Center, our intra-mural teams, movies played on campus, clubs, events put on during the day near the bell tower, etc.  These are all part of student life, and are more prevalent and relevant than smog.


 * Also, your little comment about UCR’s nickname may be, as you say, “a common joke/reference,” but it is still nonetheless offensive and disrespectful, not to mention unnecessary. Cobos 11:24, 03 March 2006 (UTC)

Create a History Section
A 'History' of UCR section should be created. It seems to be lacking in this aspect. Though it says it was established as a research station in 1907, people will wonder when it officially became a UC (which was 1954).

Above, someone typed out a good, through history of UCR. This should be made into the History section, and if needed, added to.

Here is what was typed above:

"On February 14, 1907, the University of California Board of Regents established an experiment/research station on 23 acres of land on the east slope of Mt. Rubidoux in Riverside, California. The purpose of this research station was to conduct various agricultural experiments such as fertilization, irrigation, and improvement of crops. The laboratory was later moved in 1917 to the west slope of Box Springs Mountains.

The laboratory was referred as the Rubidoux Laboratory and slowly grew in size. When the laboratory celebrated its fifieth anniversary, the laboratory was not a small laboratory, but had grown with several new buildings and usage of its acres for experimental plantings. The laboratory's original two staff personnel had increased to 265 personnel by 1957. In 1961, to reflect the growth of the laboratory, the name was changed to the Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station. At the time, the director was Alfred M. Boyce for which Boyce Hall, home to the Entomology and Biochemistry Departments, is named after.

University President Robert Gordon Sproul persuaded Gordon S. Watkins, former dean of the College of Letters and Science at University of California, Los Angeles, to undertake the organization of a small college of liberal arts at Riverside, California. In 1949, Professor Watkins accepted the job and started five years of planning, faculty recruitment, and building construction. He became the first Chancellor of Riverside campus and presided at the opening of the College of Letters and Science with 131 students in February 1954. (The title Chancellor was formally known as Provost until 1958.)"

AVOCADO!
I heard that UCR is very important in the avocado world. Some of the faculty there, I believe, is in the process of breeding a better avocado (in what aspects, I am not sure). This is all just word of mouth however. I did find some interesting information from www.avocado.org though. On the site, it says:

"AVOCADO GERMPLASM COLLECTIONS UC Riverside maintains two collections of avocado germplasm, both located at the South Coast Research and Extension Center. One of these collections focuses on horticultural varieties and their utilization in the UCR avocado breeding program. The second avocado germplasm collection emphasizes related species and genera that may be of value in other types of research and in development of avocado rootstocks. The collections together total several hundred selections."

Also, I located someone who should be put under notable faculty that deals with avocados. He is George A. Zentmyer. I found some information on him at http://www.fiatlux.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=403 The site states that he is "best known at UCR for his avocado work".

Maybe this could all be added to this entry?


 * No, you need to get a quotation from a scientific publication like Science or a major newspaper like the New York Times to back up that assertion. See How to write a great article for information on how to do online research.--Coolcaesar 12:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

More deletions
Looks like the text with the allegedly negative information is being deleted again. If you have a reason for deleting it, that is not already covered, please bring it up in talk. Otherwise those changes will be quickly reverted. Calwatch 08:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Will someone please put an end to all the negative bias posting about UCR?
I agree to the first statement, this article is blatantly biased against UC Riverside. Despite the citations, these statements appear to reflect personal opinions and a definite feeling of negativity towards UC Riverside. Perhaps They should be placed in a seperate section, under "Criticism," than directly under sections of "Academics" or "Student Life". The facts stated are true and relevant, but the biased conclusions and statements thrown in are unecessary. This is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed piece. It is my opinion that, in it's current state, this whole article appears very unprofessional and immature.

I am tired of visiting this page and seeing all the negative comments users keep putting in. Especially all those things that UCR is the worst UC and that students who go there are ‘UC Retards’ and all that crap. UC Riverside is a prestigious school and I have known many successful people who graduated there and have gone on to rewarding and successful careers.

UCR Grad's Response: There is a profound difference between what is actually written in the text and what your interpretation of the text is above. 1) It is NOT written that UCR is the "worst UC," per se. UCR's reputation as the least prestigious and least competitive UC is factual, but is qualified that since UC Merced opened, this may change. US News rankings are provided, and those are factual as well. 2) Your opinion that "UC Riverside is a prestigious school" is noble, however, the objective rankings and reports from US News, UCOP, Princeton Review, etc. are provided such that readers can use facts to make their own determinations. 3) The article does NOT state that students who attend there are "UC Retards." If you read more carefully, you will find that "UC Rejects" is common nickname for UC Riverside (an an explanation is provided). Furthermore, "UC Retardation" is a less common moniker for the school as well. However, unfortunate school surnames do not necessarily imply that the students are, themselves, retarded - nor does the article state or imply this either. 4) As a contributor to this article, I am OFFENDED that you disagree with the data I have worked very hard to include. UCR has both positive and negative attributes - it would be a tragedy if this article only discussed the positive ones. If you have EVIDENCE to dispute the information written, you should make corrections. Otherwise, it should be left alone.

This article is BS
''There is so much negative bias in this article. I don't care how hard you worked on crap, it's still crap. This is an encyclopeid and is meant to be factual. You won't open up Encyclopedia Britannica and find an entry about how people thought Aristotle smelled funny or the nicknames made by unfriendly people. It just isn't material that belongs here. You can try to say that it's relevant, but it isn't. A small entry about the negative reputation with actual facts and not irrelevant things like nicknames or whatever would be prudent. This whole article just bashes the school.

''Look at articles of other colleges, especially those that are far from stellar. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_North_Carolina_at_Greensboro A little no-name college that probably doesn't rank with UCR. It's very objective and factual. That's how this article should be.''

1) First and foremost, your usage of the word "BS" is absolutely inappropriate. If you are unable to refrain from using profanity (whether abbreviated or not), perhaps your level of matrity and common decency prevent you from being a useful contributor here.

2) I disagree with your opinions. This article highlights both positive and negative aspects of UC Riverside.  To delete all negative information would imply that the school is perfect.  I would hope that you are intelligent enough to know that this is not the case.

3) Thank you for the link to a "no-name" college wiki article. However, unless you validate this particular entry as the "benchmark" or "model" format and content for a university article, I fail to see its relevance.  In fact, I would argue that it fails to illustrate some of the shortcomings of the school.

4) I'm sorry, but I think you're way out of touch with reality here. UCRGrad 17:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Amazingly Biased
There's so much negative bias pervading parts of this article that it's a complete joke as a work of journalism. While people can (and do) debate all day about cherry-picking a balanced set of facts to present, the author felt like he/she had to do one better than persuasion and instead chose to bludgeon his/her own conclusion into the audience by interpreting these facts with his/her negative slant. Even more egregious is the injection of opinions with no citation and passing them off as common-knowledge/word-on-the-grapevine. Here's a few excerpts I found particularly disgusting: DtEW 10:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You apparently had quite a violent and emotional reaction to this article. I'm sorry to here this.  On the other hand, unless you are a psychologist, I'm not sure how you were able to draw such amazing conclusions regarding my intentions - however, just for the record, a) I'm not the original author, b) I'm not the only person providing balanced informating and c) I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiments that I am somehow "bludgening my on conclusion." However, in the off-chance that you are indeed psychic and a mind-reader, you might consider working for the Psychic Friends Network.  Otherwise, please keep your baseless inferences to yourself.'''
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * If you can mistake a text debate for violence, then it is unsurprising that you have to assume psychic powers when all anybody had to do was to point out the negative bias pervading the entire article as an obviously deliberate work of negative propaganda.
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, baseless assumptions - you're quite good at drawing conclusions without any evidence or qualification, as I've pointed out repeatedly. Furthermore, you seem unfamiliar with the definition of "violent" that refers to "having or showing great emotional force" - rather, you only seem to know the definition that refers to physical harm. I therefore question your literary ability and consequently, your aptitude to contribute at all to this article. 64.54.91.177UCRGrad

''Although UCR compares favorably to other universities across the United States, it is traditionally regarded as the least competitive and prestigious campus of the University of California. In fact, many people are surprised to learn that there is indeed a UC in Riverside because of this.''

Whose opinion is this? Who are you speaking for? A primary rule of reporting is that citations of opinion should be from a reputable source. DtEW 10:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a fact that goes without saying. Obvious facts and commonplace knowledge do NOT need a reference.  Do I need to CITE a reference for something like "UC Riverside is a member of the UC system."  What about "UC Riverside is located in Riverside, CA."  No.  Because doing so would redundant, cumbersome, and would be beneficial to nobody.
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * You apparently can't tell between fact versus opinion-attempted-conversion-to-fact-by-attribution. You should refer to Wikipedia Policy page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and check under "A Simple Formulation".

As opposed to your attempt-to-establish-validity-by-linking-to-a-policy-page. 64.54.91.177UCRGrad

To try to put referenceable facts such as "UC Riverside is a member of the UC system" and "UC Riverside is located in Riverside, CA" on the same footing as the "it is traditionally regarded as the least competitive and prestigious campus" is just idiotic.

I'm sorry, but they are all obvious facts that do not require referencing. There's just not much more to say about this. Quit whining. 64.54.91.177UCRGrad

It is your opinion that you are attempting to attribute to everyone as "commonplace knowledge". You cannot speak on behalf of "everyone" and their "commonplace knowledge". All the people who have attempted to bring a less negative tone to this article is obviously a part of "everyone", so your attempted attribution is not only inappropriate, but also false.
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

See, here's your faulty logic AGAIN. So if EVERYONE doesn't agree to something that SHOULD be obvious, then I have to provide a reference? So if Joe isn't sure that UCR is located in Riverside, CA, am I going to have to provide a reference for THAT? NO. Of course not. Because Joe SHOULD be expected to know this. 64.54.91.177UCRGrad


 * I mean, just use common sense. Until UC Merced opened, UCR had the highest admission rate, lowest avg SAT scores, lowest GPA, and the lowest US News Ranking of ALL the UC's - if not UCR, WHICH UC is regarded as the least competitive/prestigious??  Who are you trying to kid here??? In this case, the reference burden is on you - if you disagree with something so undisputed and obvious, then YOU need to provide evidence of the contrary.
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * If the verifiable facts (US News rankings) are already presented, it is not up to you to direct the reader's judgement. In addition, regarding UCR as the least competitive/prestigious school in the UC  system is your opinion, not verifiable fact nor "commplace knowledge" you can attribute to any reputable source.  It is only in your twisted sensibilities that such things are "undisputed and obvious".  Just looking in the edit history I can say that quite a few people have disputed your "common sense".
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's commonplace knowledge, just as UCR is located in Riverside. I provided USNews facts not as evidence that UCR is traditionally regarded as the least competitive/prestigious UC - I provided them to show that even objective indicators of competitiveness and prestige show UCR at the bottom of the UC system. I've addressed this issue already ad nauseum. Furthermre, edit history is irrelevant - there have been numerous people with likely UCR-affiliations (such as yourself), who make it their mission to prevent any of the negative truths about UCR to leak out. My job is to make sure that this article is objective and balanced. People like you prevent that from happening. UCRGrad 19:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Having failed that, the author is actually trying to pass opinion as "traditional regard". DtEW 10:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And you are actually trying to call an obvious fact an "opinion." Just because you are unfamiliar with information that belongs to the common knowledge does not all of a sudden make it an opinion.
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * Again, you are directed to Wikipedia Policy page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view for an understanding of what is fact and what is an opinion-without-a-solid-attribution.
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read that link very carefully, and I see no discepancies between what I have written and what the page recommends. Perhaps you should re-read it. I'll give you some examples, so you can study theme: Opinion: UCR is the worst university in the whole world. Acceptable: UCR is traditionally regarded as the least competitive/prestigious UC school. UCRGrad 19:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Are you qualified to judge whether something you've heard is a "traditional regard"?

Yes and no. Am I qualified to state that UCR is traditionally regarded as the "Harvard of the West"...no, because that really isn't a common belief shared by many. On the other hand, I have extensive experience with both UCR and the UC system -- clearly more than you do -- and I know you don't like to read these things about your beloved school, but they're true. ...but even if I were an soccer mom with only peripheral knowledge of colleges and UC's, I could still tell you that UCR was the least prestigious/competitive UC. UCRGrad 19:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

How many people have you actually talked to and shared to you this "traditional regard"? Can you say with any confidence that your sampling of opinions is representative? This is why the determination of public opinion is not taken lightly in journalism, and falling short of rigourous polling, a journalist errs on the side of caution and objectivity for fear of misrepresenting the subject at hand. DtEW 10:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are not correct. I have not made such a controversial statement that I am obliged to submit survey data to support my contention.  Again, obvious and common knowledge facts do not require a citation. (see above) On the other hand, if I had written "Most people believe UC Riverside is the MOST prestigious and recognized university in the UC system," then you'd bet I'd better have support.  I definitely agree that one should err on the side of caution, but NOT at the expense of providing important information to readers.
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * If you insist that these are indeed "obvious and common knowledge facts", I dare you to attribute a reputable source. All things accepted as factual can be attributed to either a reputable source, logical proof, or data from experimental investigation (which with the case in question would be a poll as to people's regard of UCR).  You don't even need to do it in the main article.  You can spare the reader from this thing you insist is "redundant, cumbersome, and would be beneficial to nobody" by addressing this point in this debate.
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to establish that I even NEED to reference that sentence TO BEGIN WITH. On several occasions, I have already established otherwise. Therefore, your requirements as to what kind of citation I would need are irrelevant. In fact, I believe that I have already asked you for evidence that contradicts my statement. I will ask you again here. 64.54.68.138UCRGrad

However, it is plenty obvious that the author has no qualms of such, since what he/she believes he/she knows must be right, right? DtEW 10:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There you go again with your psychic mind reading.
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * Even obvious sarcasm sounds mystical to you, doesn't it?
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am merely pointing out another instance in which your overinterpreted, presumptuous verbiage really doesn't contribute to the points you attempt to make -- especially when your assumptions are only loosely based on things you can infer (hence "mind-reading.")

Such generous admission criteria have earned UCR its unfortunate nickname "UC Rejects," or occasionally, “UC Retardation." This is based on the reality that most UC Riverside students were rejected from every other campus in the UC system, but chose out of desperation to "go to any UC."


 * In fact, your lack of familiarity with UCR's common nicknames raises a red flag that you are either a) poorly informed or lack significant knowledge about the school or b) are experiencng some sort of "delusion of grandeur" towards UC Riverside. Either way, you should NOT be contributing to this article if you do not know UCR well enough or are going to be so heavily biased that you cannot acknowledge its not-so-positive aspects.
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * Once again, I challenge you to attribute these disparaging nicknames to a reputable source, even if it's only to confirm the widespread use of these nicknames. Your asserted supposed familiarity with these nicknames means nothing if you cannot cite some evidence that the usage of such nicknames is commonplace.  Your authority on this subject is nonexistent, even though you may pretend.

It's painfully ironic that you believe that my "authority on this subject is nonexistent," especially when YOU are the one who "pretends" to be unfamiliar with these unfortunate nicknames. Again, the nickname is so common among people who are familiar with the campus that it goes without saying - reference not required, just as it's OBVIOUS that "Cal" is a nickname for UC Berkeley. NOBODY has conducted a massive survey of 1 million California high school students, for example, asking them if they knew if "UC Rejects" was a common nickname for UCR - and nobody will...but if we only relied exclusively on indisputable evidence in our textbooks and encyclopedias, we would have extremely thin volumes. I'm pretty sure you''ve heard these nicknames before, and you're playing the naivety game here -- if you really are socially/cognitiviely/geographically isolated to the point where you haven't, just do a Google search for UCR and "UC rejects" and you'll get 5 pages of hits. 64.54.91.177 20:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * On a separate note, disparaging nicknames/epithets are inherently cruel and spreading their usage plays into the prejudicial, viral intent. This is why neither journalists nor social scientists repeat the actual epithets in the course of reporting.  Especially in this circumstance where you are already cherry-picking facts to paint a negative picture, a cruel nickname does not add more info to the reader, but only gives them a pithy, viral phrase to oversimplify what is really a multi-dimensional issue (the worth of UCR).  It's also very convenient to spread oversimplification and prejudice about the subject at hand.

Your argument about social science is 100% irrelevant. Wikipedia is not here to promote pristine images of universities. On the other hand, failing to provide details of a college's shortcomings may falsely influence students to attend the school when they otherwise wouldn't -- this does them an even larger disservice. Clearly, the fact that you wish to shield readers from UCR's unfortunate nicknames means that you are NOT interested in objectivity or balanced presentation of information. You are here solely to impose a one-sided sugar-coated image of UCR, and that is absolutely unacceptable to me, to wikipedia, and to the general public. 64.54.68.138 20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * Additionally, you have failed to demonstrate how you came to grasp the “reality that most UC Riverside students were rejected from every other campus in the UC system, but chose out of desperation to go to any UC.” Do you have some special insight into the Admissions offices of all the UCs in order to say that you know the majority of UCR students were rejected from every other campus in the system?  Can you cite it, or it is just speculation you pulled from nowhere?  And my psychic powers pales in comparison to your perception of the “desperation” of UCR students to “go to any UC”.  Care to cite that too?
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "UC Rejects" as a nickname for UCR is almost as commonplace as "Cal" for UC Berkeley. If ever there was a tongue-in-cheek expansion for the acronym "UCR," it would be "UC Rejects.":
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * See, you always seem to find ways of associating things that shouldn't even be on the same footing. "Cal" is a nickname never in dispute since one can reference it authoritatively in the school's official publications and merchandise. It is also never in dispute and rarely inappropriate to use/refer to because it is judgement-neutral.  People do not find offense in its usage.  Your asserted nickname "UC Rejects" is none of the above.
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

REALLY? Can you show me a published survey in a peer-reviewed journal that demonstrates that at least 50% of the general public knows that "Cal" is the nickname for UC Berkeley, and not UC Davis? I mean, anyone can publish a brochure or make a T-shirt that says "Cal"...but how do you REALLY know that soccer mom's living in San Bernardino know this...Maybe we should "err on the side of caution" and remove the "Cal" reference from Berkeley's Wiki article.

Have you ever noticed that nicknames are rarely referenced in news and reference, unless the group that uses said nickname is small? The problem lies in the fact that a nickname is rarely universal. If you cite a nickname, you better cite the group that uses it, in this case "UCR detractors". To fail to do so is to imply that the nickname is universal, which would be untrue. But that sort of scrupulousness isn't the author's forte, is it? DtEW 10:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Gee, that's funny. I read about "Cal football" in the newspaper all the time.  I have never seen a journalist write "Cal football wins XYZ, by the way, 'Cal' is the nickname for UC Berkeley, used by people who want to shorten the name of the school."  A nickname is a nickname.  It does not necessarily imply that it is universal. There are plenty of people who have never heard of or refuse to use Berkeley's nickname "Cal" - this does NOT necessarily imply that "Cal" is NOT UC Berkeley's nickname or that it should not be mentioned, as you seem to imply.  I'm sorry to say that your reasoning and concerns so are really don't have any merit.  Your little ad hominem at the end doesn't help your case either.
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * Why, I didn't realize that we were actually in a discussion about a newspaper where some official, self-promoted nickname was being referenced obliquely! Oh wait, we're actually talking about introducing/informing a reader to a disparagingly afflicted, alleged nickname.  Too bad for you.  I think anybody with the slightest hint of objectivity can see superior analogies in sociological articles where epithets/nicknames used by hate groups label their targets are referenced.  Had this been your intent, you would have cited for the reader the group that inflicts this, since these epithets/nicknames are obviously not universal.
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said - and it's not my reading comprehension, it's your lack of clarity. Unlike you, I am not a mind-reader, so maybe you could try again and explain yourself better. What I do know is that you argued that nicknames are rarely used in the news media, yet I provided a great example of how newspapers usually refer to UC Berkeley as "Cal." You then argued that nicknames are rarely universal, and therefore should not be included. I then responded by pointing out that "Cal" is probably not 100% universal either, yet it is perfectly acceptable to mention. Thirdly, you argued that it was absolutely necessary to cite which group uses a nickname whenever it is mentioned; however, as I pointed out, I have NEVER seen this done with "Cal" and UC Berkeley. Bottom line is, you don't have very good reasons at all why UCR's common nicknames should be removed from the article...the only one you have is that

The second sentence is, frankly, the most asinine thing I have ever read within a piece intended to be journalism. That sentence implies that the author is not only privy to the inner workings of the UC admissions process, but also privy to the mental processes of a majority of UCR studuents. To include the word "reality" is the proverbial whipped cream and Maranschino cherry on top of this steaming pile of mental excrement. DtEW 10:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Like everything else you have written so far, your statements are based on opinion, weak logic, and/or personal attacks. You clearly have nothing to contribute here.
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * It's ironic that you can say that, since it is you who has been maintaining unattributable opinion as fact through the entire article.
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unlike dedicated medical schools, these courses are actually taught in classrooms located in the basement of the Statistics building and in portable trailers.

Unless you can show that there is something terribly relevant about these locations in regards to the actual medical program itself, this sentence is nothing more than the kind of false arguement by association (in this case to the less-than-upscale nature of basements and portable trailers) that mud-slinging politicians often resort to in dirty campaigns. It means nothing and conveys no truly useful facts, but it furthers the author's intended slant. DtEW 10:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You obviously are not familiar with medical education, or you are somehow attempting to sound helplessly naive, as though you are somehow victimized by what is actually an important and factual addition to this article. By mentioning a medical school program at UCR, the default assumption is that it is like other traditional medical schools - with dedicated med school facilities such as classrooms, laboratories, a medical library, etc.  It would be horribly misleading not to mention the fact that UCR's program actually lacks these buildings and structures because it is only designed to accomodate 24 students per year, unlike true medschools, which have 100+ students/year and an appropriate budget
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * If that is your assertion, you will receive no argument from me if you can cite the allotted annual budget devoted to the program and how it compares unfavorably to dedicated medical schools. That's because money spent per student is generally accepted as a relevant indicator of educational quality.  The physical locations of classes isn’t nearly as relevant, unless you can show that said locations are actually deficient.  What you have actually written provided no rational proof that such locations are responsible for a deficient medical school education, but slurs the program by referencing people's prejudice against basements and trailers.

However, it lacks a dedicated medical library to provide health education resources to the 48 UCR/UCLA medical students on campus.

The lack of a medical library for the 48 medical students deserves to be singled out for mention against the tens of thousands of students in a plethora of majors served by the Rivera, Science, Music, and Media libraries? DtEW 10:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Using that logic, we shouldn't even mention the medical program AT ALL because it's only for 48 students - vs. the 12,000 other students on campus.
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * I would actually agree with that. A program that outputs 24 students a year is nothing more than fringe, no matter how they harp it up.
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If one of UCR's main functionalities was as a medical school (it isn't), and fails to address this basic need, then there would be a point. Otherwise, 48 medical students compromise nothing more than a niche, even if it is an officially sanctioned one. If you insist on harping on such a point, then every under-served niche in any university deserves a mention. DtEW 10:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * More faulty reasoning. It is 100% appropriate to mention the UCR/UCLA medical program in this article for numerous reasons, including:
 * 1) it is very commonly mentioned in recruitment brochures
 * 2) at least several hundred students each year at UCR are "pre-med"
 * 3) the UCR/UCLA program is often a selling point for medicine-hopefuls coming out of high school
 * 4) it is a well-known program among the medical community (vs. the vast majority of UCR's other programs which are generally unheard of)
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * I will give you this argument only on the basis that the school does indeed make a big deal out of it when it really shouldn’t.
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * However, if you can think of an equally prominent and important program/major/whatever that deserves mention, PLEASE feel free to add it to the article.


 * You are clearly a heavily biased individual who refuses to acknowledge the negative aspects of UC Riverside. You question the objectivity of others, yet you demonstrate absolutely none yourself.  You've used faulty reasoning in a desperate attempt to remove factual information that detracts from your perceived grandeur or UCR.  I don't think you're fooling anyone here.
 * 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * Back at ya. You've been formally asked to cite your asserted "facts".  And there will be plenty more assertions in this article that will be held up to scrutiny.  The ball is in your court.
 * DtEW 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As an observer I think the most important issue is not whether the article is presents ALL of the information about the campus-- rather the article should present accurate and balanced information in a relatively brief narrative. The debate regarding so-the called negative bias of the UCR article, I mostly side with the comments from UCRGrad. In most all cases the "negative" facts are almost always cited, either from educational agencies or, in some cases, environmental studies. Thus, there is no disproportionate lack of citations with regards to the negative aspects when compared to those that are positive. More generally, there is not even a disproportionate amount of negative comments in the article. A thoughtful reader will see and appreciate a balanced narrative that describes both positive and negative attributes to this particular University. Consequently, it is difficult to understand why DtEW is asserting that there is a negative bias in the article, and it is tempting to speculate about his/her REAL motives. Nevertheless... As for the current dialogue, the strongest challenge that DtEW raised was that it was inappropriate to cite UCR nicknames, such as "UC Reject" or "UC Retardation." While these nicknames are not used by officials they still have validity because they are commonly known the campus community. Commen hold a special significance and lead to a better understanding of the culture and the environment. For example, when visiting an IN/OUT Burger restaurant, one has the option of selecting the "Animal Style" burger preparation, which includes adding more tomatoes, onions and so on (thus making it a more TASTY BURGER). However, Animal Style is not on any official menu-- would this fact then preclude it from being mentioned in an article. I think NOT. Thus, "non-official" information (including nicknames) have their rightful place in journalistic articles-- and so should UC Rejects in context of UCR. --IB

Third opinion
Regarding the 'common knowledge' vs 'citation needed' argument, I'm afraid that the 'common knowledge' argument isn't strictly allowable. WP:NPOV isn't really relevant here; what is important is verifiability (note especially section two; "Verifiability, not truth"). Now, all that needs to be done to allow inclusion of the items is to find a source for them. It doesn't need to be a complete academic paper on 'attitudes towards UCR'; just some evidence (even if tangential) that people do feel this way. It doesn't necessarily need to be posted in the main article itself; stick it in the talk page to persuade any doubters if they ask for it. Also note the power of the phrase "Some people feel that..." in this sort of circumstance. --Scott Wilson 22:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty and creative reinterpretation of the Third Opinion?!
Was: == Malicious reverting by DtEW does not change the unfortunate truths about UCR == Was: == A reference for one thing does not justify everything else. ==

[Sarcasm] I see you produced some quality, authoritative references for one item in dispute. [/sarcasm] Some citations for one disputed fact doesn't give you carte blanche to revert everythign else in dispute.


 * On the other hand, I have adequately addressed each and every one of your concerns above, yet you still engage in malicious reversion and editing instead of actually responding to my points. This is unacceptable, and I will now be extra-vigilant to ensure that you cannot vandalize this article further.  If you continue to dispute this article's contents, then you are expected to do so in the TALK page, especially when I respond to your concerns promptly.  I'm pretty sure that you have enough common decency to practice that little bit of etiquette. UCRGrad 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * You're either delusional or are expecting to delude casual readers of this debate. Despite your assertion, you have addressed very few of my concerns.  You've mostly ducked my main argument against just about all of the disputed passages, which I have pointed out as being nothing more than opinions without a proper attribution and/or citation.  You have been insisting that not only were the disputed passages "fact", but citations were unnessary because they were "commonplace knowledge".  You then assert that I somehow bore the burden of proof to disprove your uncited "commonplace knowledge".  I asked for a Third Opinion, and sure enough, he pointed out that your "commonplace knowledge" argument falls short of Wikipedia standards for verifiability.


 * Whereas the Third Opinion should have ended the argument by requiring you to either cite those disputed passages or remove them altogether, you found citations for the passage concerning the nickname "UC Rejects" in Answers.com (mirrored from Wikipedia); StudentsReview.com; UrbanDictionary.com, and a humor thread on CollegeConfidential.com. I was almost expecting your personal homepage to be listed amongst the citations, LOL.


 * In regard to your demand that any dispute I have should only be carried out in Talk, I will not at all abide for the fact that 1) Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and we both have equal right to dispute and modify its contents. The article does not belong to you and there is no reason I should need to pass anything through your approval before it is done.  The main responsibility we have is to the Wiki community, and that is that we try to reach consensus through discussion/debate.  This is what we're doing in the Talk page. 2) It is your perspective and a loose regard for words that labels my edits as "vandalism".  The selective nature of my edits and my long discourses in Talk should have clued you in otherwise, but then I do not believe you're trying for much intellectual honesty here anyways.  3) Your editing history shows that you destroy other people's edits without consulting them, sometimes even without discourse in Talk.  You have no right to lecture me about common decency. DtEW 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, you need to also watch your citations as the Answers.com citation was circular. Clicking the UCR hyperlink on that page takes you to a mirror of a past version of this Wiki. The "reference" is the article in dispute.


 * In addition, you need to be WAY more careful with your negligent edits. There was no "circular" citation.  The article on answers.com (duplicate of corresponding wiki article) was an independent listing of many "bacronyms," including UCR.  ALL backronyms on that page automatically linked to its wikipedia article, BUT the hyperlinked wikipedia article was NOT used as a reference.  In fact, the article also lists "University of Chinese Refugees" as another expansion of UCR, which was never included in the wiki article.  This is another example of how your malicious reversions and edits are borderline vandalism and censorship here.  It will not and should not be tolerated. UCRGrad 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * Wikipedia's standards for verifiability goes as thus:


 * Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.


 * Reliable sources notes explicitly, under "Using online sources: Reliability":


 * At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources.


 * This policy instantly eliminates three-out-of-four of your sources for failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability and verifiability. Ironically, the Answers.com (Wikipedia mirror) source is eliminated as well due to the fact that the UCR reference in Backronym lacks appropriate sources and hence also fails Wikipedia's standard for verifiability.  Your "UC Rejects" assertion still lacks a reliable source, and therefore will be removed in this edit.


 * So a moment ago you thought you had produced sources and hence justification to revert the "UC Rejects" passage. What in the world made you think that dubious citations about one issue/passage in a debate justifies the reversion of four other issues/passages that remain uncited?  You can throw all sorts of hyperbole about "malicious reversion" and such, but cannot obscure the fact that you were the one doing performing the unjustified editing. DtEW 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your wholesale reversion neglects the fact that you have not addressed the following passages in dispute, which still fails the verfiability test without reference(s).


 * I will continue to conduct these reversions to protect information that I know to be true and appropriate for a wikipedia article, especially when I have already adequately addressed your concerns in the TALK page. Once again, it is unquestionably poor-form of you to ignore my TALK responses and make your own erroneous changes (such as the one above).  It is especially egregious, since a 3rd party reviewed our conversation and sided against you. UCRGrad 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * Are you stupid or just pretending to be so? The Third Opinion just told YOU that YOU need to cite your sources.  You obviously missed the first sentence in which he said:


 * Regarding the 'common knowledge' vs 'citation needed' argument, I'm afraid that the 'common knowledge' argument isn't strictly allowable.


 * Or did you forget that you were one championing the "common knowledge" argument to not provide any citations to answer my challenge?


 * The next sentence goes:


 * WP:NPOV isn't really relevant here; what is important is verifiability (note especially section two; "Verifiability, not truth").


 * Which is him correcting me, noting that the policy debate in question is in fact not in WP:NPOV, but rather in verifiability. The rest of Third Opinion is him telling you that to justify the inclusion of the passages you want kept, you need to come up with sources.


 * Before this current response, you came up with some dubious sources to ONE ISSUE/PASSAGE OUT OF FIVE and decided that you were justified to revert ALL the issues/passages. As of this point those dubious sources have been nullified and so you do not have any sources for the issues/passages in question.  Any egregious reversion is all yours. DtEW 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Although UCR compares favorably to other universities across the United States, it is trditionally regarded as the least competitive and prestigious campus of the University of California.


 * I would be happy to reword this statement, only to appease you. However, the information is pertinent and will remain. UCRGrad 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * I do not care for you to appease anyone. But you are required to meed Wikipedia standards for verifiability.  You need to cite that or it does not belong in here in any form. DtEW 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is based on the reality that most UC Riverside students were rejected from every other campus in the UC system, but chose out of desperation to "go to any UC."


 * This statement is non-essential, but will return once I find a good reference. On this particular sentence, I agree that a citation would be appropriate. UCRGrad 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * Agreed, assuming you can actually find a good reference to meet Wikiepdia's policy of verifiability. Personally, I doubt it. DtEW 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

''...but are frequently unsuccessful in acquiring admission. Those that do succeed are typically limited to D.O. schools or foreign M.D. programs.''


 * Citation provided.


 * I explored that cited site ad nauseum and cannot find commentary nor statistics regarding UCR. You need to provide a more specific URL, or provide directions to the evidence cited, if only in this discussion.  Personally, I doubt you will be able to provide it as that site does not provide citeable statistics for undergrad schools.  If your "citation" is a Google search for "UCR" and a analysis of the profiles, I can tell you right now that any analysis of the sort is invalid for Wikipedia as it is considered original research. DtEW 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I wait with baited breath to see what sort of "authoritative" references you'll come up with this time. DtEW 04:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

References need NOT be "authoritative" to qualify as a verifiable source. Somebody already pointed this out to you in the TALK page, yet you still insist that you are correct. This is not the first error you've made either in your understanding of the rules and requirements of Wikipedia. I suggest that you re-read the help pages before further breaching etiquette and making unreasonable demands here. Thanks. UCRGrad 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * Sarcasm flies right over ya, doesn't it? Your sources don't even meet Wikipedia's requirement for reliability, so what chance is there for them to be authoritative?  Again, it is YOU, not me, who has consistently ignored the rules and requirement of Wikipedia.  1) You had refused to provide citation for disputed passages, using the now-discredited argument of "commonplace knowledge".  2) You had cited unreliable online sources that are expressly unacceptable under Wikipedia guidelines.  3) You had unjustifiably reverted multiple disputed issues/passages when you only attempted to provide citation for one disputed passage.  With your obvious and easily referrable breaches of both Wikipedia policy and general intellectual honesty, I'm amused at your vague accusations. DtEW 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to come back and clarify my third opinion. As DtEW says, the burden of proof lies with the editor that wants the edits to stand. UCRGrad has provided sources for some of their assertations, but not for others - for instance, the nickname, 'University of California, Rejects', undoubtedly exists, but those sources do not show that it is because of the admission critera - this is speculation or original research at best. On a related note, be careful that sources show what you are claiming that they do - the MDapplicants.com one doesn't say anything about the relative merits of the university; you need to do a certain amount of research to figure that out, so it's unacceptable (or at least, that page of it is). --Scott Wilson 13:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Insert-Belltower
Insert-Belltower, please do not revert to the version with the disputed assertions. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes the edits to stand, and more evidence is still needed. --Scott Wilson 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for you, too UCRGrad - reverting it umpteen different times won't make them any more acceptable to WP:V. You made no attempt to discuss my comments, as well as many of DtEW's before reverting. --Scott Wilson 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

- According to you, I am UCRgrad's "Sockpuppet." Perhaps it makes you feel better to label me, or does it make things easier for you to understand? Nevertheless, I cannot address your points seriously until you have respect for me, that is, don't call me childish names that you learned by the swing-set on the playground. Frankly, I don't take you seriously. Therefore, until you apologize and take-back your inane remark, I will continue REVERT the article-- out of principle.

HAVE a nice day

--Insert-Belltower - Scott Wilson, please refer to the Wikipedia policy "WP:NPA" forbidding the use of personal attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia." Thanks. UCRGrad 18:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad
 * Insert-Belltower, I'm sorry about that whole incident. I made a hasty decision and put the sockpuppet tag on your user page before I had the proof I should have. Once again, I apologise. --Scott Wilson 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What personal attack? --Scott Wilson 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

--Response to request for references Thank you to both DtEW and Scott Wilson for bringing up some a few disagreements to this article's contents. I want to make sure that the information provided here is accurate and reflects general consensus. This is why it's important to have feedback from additional people. You two seem very enthusiastic and zealous, although so far, you've only demonstrated interest in removing content that discusses the negative aspects of UCR. I'd like to take the time to address these concerns, but I wish to do so succinctly in the future. Here goes: 1) the Answers.com reference is valid and verifiable - it is actually a duplicate of an actual Wikipedia article on "backronyms." Referencing other wiki pages is fine.  Your objection to the references in the BACKRONYMS article is irrelevant because: From the Wikipedia policy/procedures page: "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research.  2) The MDApplicants.com reference is fine. You claim to have extensively evaluated the site, but all you had to do was search for applicants from UCR and view their MD matriculation success. The link for this was on the front page. You can't link the actual search results, so I wasn't able to add a distinct URL. 3) When I referred to a 3rd party that agreed with me, I was clearly making reference to "Insert-Belltower," not to "Scott Wilson." Perhaps you missed his TALK entry? 4) I 100% disagreed with your rationale for reversions, and I therefore returned the article to its previous state. If I perceive that my work is being destroyed without strong rationale, I will revert - and so would others. 5) Each reference I added was carefully selected and specifically verified by me. If you have a problem with one, I expect you to discuss it individually and explain how you feel that it does not meet Wikipedia standards.  To dismiss all of them with a generalization is unaceptable.  To say the equivalent of "nope, none off your references meet wiki standards, see policies/guidelines, revert" is not sufficient.  You have to explain why and do so for each reference.  I would be happy to open a dialogue with you in this regard.  6) Please refrain from making accusations, presumptions, and emotionally charged statements here if you can avoid it. Doing so promotes civility. Thanks. UCRGrad 19:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * 1) Answers.com and the other sources in that block verify that the UC Rejects nickname exists - I do not disagree with that. It is however, speculation to say that this is directly because of the entrance standards. Perhaps something more neutral like "A popular reputation for low entrance standards leads to it's nicknames of..."
 * 2) That's original research, and bordering on empirical evidence. Sorry. If you can't link to the exact results, we've got to kick it out. "verifiability; not truth".
 * 4) It's not a matter of our rationale for reverting; we've told you why they're not acceptable under Wikipedia policy; you must find sources; it is you who wants those facts in the encyclopedia. Also please note that this is as much our article as it is yours. This is not 'your' work.
 * 5) That's what we've been doing above. --Scott Wilson 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

1) I will accept this change. 2) A simply obtained list of where UCR students eventually were accepted to medical school is not "original research." Original research would clearly be me going out and collecting this data myself from UCR premeds, then publishing it for the first time here. It would be different if I had linked to a database of raw data and expected you to run some Excel routines to spit out data. Instead, the results are readily available, and I had summarized it nicely in my original sentence. Remember, the guideline is VERIFIABILITY, not "linkability." 4) DtEW's explanations for why he dismissed all of my citations is insufficient. You cannot say something like "3 out of 4 references do not meet Wiki standards. Read the wiki policies. Revert."  You have to discuss why you think a particular reference is not acceptable. Otherwise, any party can just come and take ANY line they don't like, say "reference does not meet Wiki standards" and delete, without any further explanation. UCRGrad 21:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad
 * ) When you labelled user "Insert-Belltower" a "sockpuppet," that was a personal attack (since you asked above). I'm glad you had the grace to apologize.


 * For 2), you're still missing the point and shifting the Wikipedia policy violation from the original lack of verfiability to a violation of Wikipedia's ban on original research by citing a reliable source that does not explicitly make the interpretation/conclusion you are trying to forward. I have emboldened the specific part of the policy that the passage in question is in violation of:


 * Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".


 * Let me help you understand. Original research refers to data and/or interpretations of data that are not from a reliable source.  In other words, you are not allowed to interpret any existing data or draw any conclusions, because you are not a reliable source.  If the reliable source did not explicitly make the interpretation/conclusion you are now producing on Wikipedia, there may be (or may not be) reasons why this is so.  You do not know either way, and hence you are not allowed to risk misinterpretation.  FYI, this is part of general intellectual rigor, which I do not think you are trying very hard at, or maybe even trying at all.  That is my opinion.  The disputed passage will be removed in this edit.


 * For 3), you are arguing from a position of selective reading and/or deliberate ignorance. The sentences immediately prior to my dismissal of your three unreliable sources (StudentsReview.com, UrbanDictionary.com, CollegeConfidential.com) is both the link and the quotation of Wikipedia's specific disallowal as reliable sources of the kinds of websites that those three sources are.  If even that degree of explicitness isn't enough to meet your standards, I'll expound.  They are completely unreliable because anybody can put anything on them.  For example, I can go on all three sites and post/claim that "Ustedes Curmudgeony Roh" is a common backronym for UCR and such obvious misinformation will actually remain on the website for me to "cite" in the way that you have done.  For that reason these kinds of websites are specifically disallowed by Wikipedia as sources.  If you want to think about it another way, I can go to StudentsReview.com and cite ad infinitum from the positive reviews that are there and those citations would be perfectly verifiable if you insist that these types of sites meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability.


 * Just so you don't squirm out of it again, the reason the last source (Answers.com mirror of Backronyms) is also invalid due to the failure of that Wiki's reference to UCR to meet verifiability standards, as there are no citations whatsoever to justify the backronym of UCR. You can argue all day about the current existence of that Wiki, or you can just be honest about it and admit that the Wiki you are referencing is itself invalid.  The disputed passage will be removed in this edit.
 * --DtEW 06:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept Scott Wilson's apology.

Now for discussion. The major disputes here are whether or not a particular source meets the Wiki criteria for reference. So far UCRGrad has been able to defend all of the points raised. It is essential to be very specific when discussing these points. I think much of this can be solved by changing the wording.

The uniqueness of Wikipedia, as a user edited encyclopedia, gives us the opportunity to create informative articles that transcend the mundanity of ordinary encyclopedias. Wikipedia allows us, the common people, to share information in a manner that does not receive the censorship of the government or elites-- as you might find in more tradition texts. Thus, in a more free sense, we should be beholden to the opportunity that Wikipedia gives us-- that is, to write free and thoughtful articles that give us the best information-- "COMMON MAN to COMMON MAN."

The issues about this article come to this: Should the whole truth be told, even if some aspects are negative? Or should only a positive spin be placed. The answer is this: The truth should be told, and it should be done in an unbiased manner. The question: WHY CENSOR UCRGRAD'S CONTRIBUTION JUST BECAUSE HE'S TRYING TO TELL THE WHOLE STORY? ---Insert-Belltower


 * As long as you don't include unnecessary adjectives, and cite your sources, preferably with information that doesn't come in blogs or random web sites. It would be much more informative if you could actually use Lexis-Nexis and pull out some articles about the school, and appear far less biased. Calwatch 02:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a few things to add: 1) I'm not sure where you're coming up with this notion of "unnecessary adjectives" - please don't tell other people how to write. Everyone has his/her own style. 2) I don't think you're in a position to tell people that they can only use one particular source, the one you pick out, and one that requires a subscription. If you buy me access to Lexis-Nexis, heck, I'll be happy to throw in a line or too myself. 3) I fail to see any bias in this article. I'm actually getting quite sick and tired of people saying this from time to time. UCRGrad 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * Actually, everyone may have their own style, but please do conform to WP:STYLE when writing on wikipedia. Thanks. Calwatch 06:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. CALWATCH,
Your edits without discussion are unacceptable. We have already established a forum for such things here. Please refrain from editing the article in absence of further discussions. If you continue to make changes, we will REVERT it in a heartbeat-it will be like a Ventricular Tachycardia going to Normal Sinus with no PVCs. If you are confused by that analogy, you are welcome to look it up.

Thank You For Your Understanding,

Insert-Belltower


 * Please do not make personal attacks. Also, please cite a verifiable, published source for your "UC Retardation" nickname. Calwatch 01:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing any personal attacks directed towards you. UCRGrad 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad


 * While you may claim "UC Rejects" as a legitimate nickname, which I will not dispute at this time, the fact is that "UC Retardation" is an unsourced neologism that has only one reference (aside from this article and its copies) in google. Therefore, "UC Retardation" is stricken from the article. Calwatch 05:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

UC Rejects Redux
Aside from the web references, the only reference I can find from Nexis is a reference about "UC Rejects" directed towards Cal State Northridge, NOT UC Riverside (search of "UC Rejects" + Riverside). (The insult "Cal State Nowhere" was also used. See January 20, 2002, Los Angeles Daily News, "Carr Crashes Party in Irvine.) A search in google brings up 88 references, including self references. (Actually, the name "Cal State Riverside" comes up more often, which I am going to put in the article.) I still think that UC Rejects is a neologism though. Calwatch 06:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Enrollment Trends, Paying to Examine the Sources, and POV-pushing
Enrollment figures in "History" have been clarified and cited to reflect the fact that prior wording was misleading, possibly intentionally. Ten years of enrollment growth accounting for a doubling of the student body (7,585 to 15,399) followed by two years in which the student body lowers to 14,649 is in no way characterizeable by the term "steady decline". That is about the most ridiculous characterization I have ever come across.

'''There was indeed a steady decline since 2003. If you look at the slope of the graph included in the UCOP reference, you will find that it was a straight line from 2003 to 2005. A straight line = STEADY rate, and a negative slope = decline. Please learn how to read graphs before criticizing obviously correct summaries. UCRGradUCRGrad

''Financially, UCR has received sufficient funding to become a comprehensive university, but has lagged behind other UC schools with respect to growth in this area. Despite being the fourth University of California campus to open, it now ranks last in "financial resources," according to US News and World Report''

The only part of this whole mess the citation justifies is the "ranks last in finacial resources". Everything else is speculation unless you can cite it from a reputable source. Speculative passage is removed in this edit, with the cited detail relocated into "Academics," as you will see why.

'''No speculation here. If you're the 4th UC to open, but you're now LAST in financial resources, then it is 100% implicit that UCR didn't grow as fast. Did they not teach you this concept in high school math? UCRGrad 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

So I spent the money and bought into the US News and World Report College 2006 premium pay site, registered for the Princeton Review site, and exhaustively examined the references. I found that negative-sounding passages here mostly contradict the spirit of the reports on those sites, as US News and World report actually ranks UCR within their top schools.

'''The passages are objective, and it solely your interpretation that the "spirit" (whatever that means) is not being translated. UC News ranks UCR #85 overall. This is already mentioned.''' UCRGrad 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Through omission of the total schools surveyed in each ranking, a #85 and #39 ranking suggests badly until it's revealed that it's out of 248 and 169 schools, respectively.

'''I don't see how listing the denominator helps at all here. If you want, add them in.UCRGrad 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGRad

UCR does compare relatively weakly to other UCs, but even in that comparison undue emphasis is given to categories with worst rankings, omitting other rankings that put UCR in the middle of the road.

'''A comparison to other UC's is natural and germane to include in an article on *UC* Riverside. It is almost EXPECTED that such a comparison be made. There is no "undue emphasis." In fact, I don't think enough space is devoted to such a comparison, compared to that long list of "notable alumni" that really aren't all that notable.'''

Omission of Princeton Review's awarding of "Best Western Colleges" and "America's Best Value College" when it is on the VERY SAME PAGE as the "Professors Get Low Marks [for Teaching]," "Professors Make Themselves Scarce," and "Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses," de-merits just reeks of bias. The final nail in the coffin is the proclamation:

but overall, UCR has not had favorable reports regarding teaching quality

Which is complete bunk to be tagged to the Princeton Review's demerits because the complete wording of the Princeton Review's testimonial on "Academics" is:

''Students at the University of California (UC)—Riverside call their school an "excellent learning environment" with "instructors who actually care about the students and teach for the love of teaching." One student writes, "People used to think that UC Riverside was the bastard child of the UC system. It's not." In fact, a junior business major proclaims that he actually chose Riverside over heavy hitters UC Berkeley and UCLA, crowing that "the academic element [at Riverside] is unbeatable." Many undergraduates are drawn by the "great computer science program," others by the "generous financial aid." Students praise professors for being "very understanding and easily accessible." One respondent tells us, "Upper-division classes are very personal and a great chance to get to know professors." Certain students complain, however, that "high-level courses should not be taught by graduate students," which a few seem to be. A senior psychology major whines that, as at many large state universities, "some professors are more interested in their research than talking to undergraduates." Another student feels that "some of my classes are watered down," while others ask for "more lab sections." Riverside is experiencing some "growing pains" as the enrollment increases somewhat dramatically, and this may be the cause of some of the glitches students perceive in the administrative processes. One senior reports, "Administrators hide in their offices and pray you don't come to see them," and several surveys claim that the administration spends too much time interfering with the Greek system. Another undergrad counters these assertions, though, declaring that he chose Riverside because it "caters to each student's needs." Overall, the school is set up so that students have "a great opportunity to interact with staff, faculty, and administrators."''

'''Princteon Review conducted substantial surveys and with EACH PUBLICATION of this book (this website data is in book form), UCR has CONSISTENTLY RANKED in the top 20 (out of >200) for Professors Get Low Marks [for Teaching], Professors Make Themselves Scarce, and Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses. Just because PR tries to soften the blow by including a few anecdotal quotes from some respondents (which you have quoted above), does NOT change the obvious conclusions that an objective person can come to. My friend, there's A REASON why UCR is listed as one of the worst schools in the nation for low teaching quality by Princeton Review...and that's in THREE categories. I'm sorry, but I just tell it as it is. Don't sugar-coat data. It's bad journalism.''' UCRGradUCRGRad

Now having witnessed the sources firsthand, I am re-wording all passages in discussion to reflect the the actual citations, instead of the prior misrepresention mixed with unciteable speculation. All parts of the new text is completely cited.

If you insert anecdotal reports from PR, I will balance them with anecdotal reports from StudentsReview.com and CollegeConfidential - they are equally admissible because they have the same level of rigor. UCRGradUCRGrad

In regards to the descriptions of the UCR library system, undue weight without counterbalance is given to the whimsical science fiction/fantasy collection, effectively trivializing the system. Each library's collection is now specified, and of course cited.

Hey, I didn't write that stuff about science fiction/fantasy. UCRGradUCRGrad

It is now patently obvious that there has been quite a bit of POV-pushng and intellectual dishonesty.

'''1) Please do not accuse people of "POV-pushing" and "intellectual dishonesty." Not only is this 100% untrue, but your accusations in VIOLATION of WP policy.  2) I have already used the expression "patently obvious" elsewhere in my responses. Please be original. ''' UCRGradUCRGrad

Call to DtEW to PLEASE maintain CIVILITY in your responses
I realize that DtEW is making a good-faith effort to make contributions to this article, but I think in his zeal and enthusasism, he has broken quite a few Wikipedia policies with respect to civility and etiquette.

DtEW has written some very lengthy responses here in TALK, but I often find them difficult to sort through because most of them are filled with uncivil remarks and emotionally-charged language. I have included a few examples below. I want to focus my efforts on making this a well-written and ACCURATE article, and I do not think it’s fair that I spend half my time fending off these inappropriate comments from DtEW. Therefore, future responses that involve such uncivil language will be ignored, and changes will be justifiable reverted.

Examples of DtEW’s Violations:

Assume Good Faith – I realize I’m not supposed to point out when people aren’t assuming good faith, but it seems like DtEW violates WP:AGF in just about every one of his responses

Quote: “It is now patently obvious that there has been quite a bit of POV-pushng and intellectual dishonesty” - DtEW

Quote: “the entire article as an obviously deliberate work of negative propaganda” -DtEW

Quote: “you are arguing from a position of selective reading and/or deliberate ignorance” - DtEW

Quote: “the author felt like he/she had to do one better than persuasion and instead chose to bludgeon his/her own conclusion into the audience” - DtEW

'''Avoid labeling: [these descriptions] make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively.'''

Quote: “That is about the most ridiculous characterization I have ever come across” -DtEW

Rudeness

Quote: “this is part of general intellectual rigor, which I do not think you are trying very hard at, or maybe even trying at all” - DtEW

Judgmental tone in edit summaries

Quote: “Your authority on this subject is nonexistent” - DtEW belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice

Quote: “To try to put referenceable facts such as [fact 1 compared to fact 2] is just idiotic” -DtEW

Quote: “this article. . . is a complete joke as a work of journalism” - DtEW

ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another

Quote: “it is plenty obvious that the author has no qualms of such, since what he/she believes he/she knows must be right, right” - DtEW

UCRGrad 18:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

AAU
Should we write about UCR's attempt at AAU membership under Chan. White?

http://strategicplan.ucr.edu/pdf/ucr2020.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.206.173 (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Noted Alum section
Yes, James Holmes is a "notable" alumnus. We have a List of University of California, Riverside people and his name is on that list. Accordingly, I've pared down the section in this article to include only the very most notable alums. Holmes himself is WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME, so I see little justification for including him in the WP:FA which covers the entire U, not WP:RECENTISM.--S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm fine with his name appearing on List of University of California, Riverside people, but not in this article, especially per WP:BLP1E and the need to keep the article on topic. szyslak  ( t ) 06:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. I disagree. You mention "very most" as your criteria for inclusion of such persons in this list. The question is what does "very most" mean. Does it mean only notable in a positive sense? If so, then I think only naming those people would degrade the encyclopedic value of this article. However, if you mean "very most notable" to mean at face value then Mr. Holmes should be included, since Mr. Holmes is probably now the most notable alumnus now from UC Riverside, more than anyone else! If one were to ask a random person on the street if they have Mr. James Holmes or Dr. Richard R. Schrock-- who would they know better??? I would like to know what others think about this.AxonPatch (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I quite agree that defining "very most" is difficult, but those people now listed (pared down from a less selective list) are quite notable -- the Nobel Prize, Poet Laurate, Pulitizers, etc. are very rare/distinctive measures of qualification. As you say, Holmes has notability for now. So putting limits on this section is more than just name recognition. (So what if people recognize his name right now? What were the names of the guys that shot up Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood?) This is a featured article and FA criteria calls for article stability. Adding his name now, because of his temporary notability, goes against the FA guidelines.  I ask you -- why should be be included? How does his name fit WP:UNIGUIDE guidelines?  Again, Holmes is listed in the People of UCR article.  That should work for all concerned.  --S. Rich (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's a foregone conclusion that this individual is of lasting infamy. I don't like the edit warring that has occurred around this edit but it's pretty clear that the perpetrator of such a widely-reported, heinous crime is notable by our standards.  He's clearly notable and I think fairness demands we include him in this article, not least so we avoid the appearance of keeping this article unduly positive. ElKevbo (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm actually a graduate of UC Riverside. At first, I was shocked to see that the Aurora killer was a graduate of UCR, but looking back at my college days, there were quite a few weirdos that remind me of him. I added his name to the alumni list as a reminder that UCR, given its "inland" location, can tend to attract students like James Holmes. In this one club I was in, there was one particular guy would show up at our meetings dressed in a black trenchcoat. Anyway, let's be honest here. Are any of the alumni listed really that notable? Colleges have graduates who win the Nobel Prize all the time! A Nobel laureate may be a big deal for UCR (because there aren't that many), but it's seriousl not "that" notable. Same with Pulitzer Prize winners, especially for a cartoonist. I don't even know what a poet laureate is (for that Billy Collins person). And listing someone who discovered some fossils and was named an influential person by Time, a newsmedia magazine? James Holmes shocked the nation with his crime. He is far more notable and recognizable than any of the other "notable alumni," and it is particularly noteworthy that he was a "top student" from UCR as well. I don't think there needs to be a whole section devoted to James Holmes, but he definitely belongs on that front page, just like the lesser known alumni. I agree with Axonpitch. Wikimaster415 (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I agree with Wikimaster and ElKevbo. I have included Holmes in the article for now. I feel that those who exclude Holmes from the article is a violation of NPOV, and (may) just be wanting to bolster their personal grandeur view of the school. AxonPatch (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit warring isn't the way to go about it, though. (And it is quite a coincidence that several brand new editors have popped up to make the same edits at the same time, no?) ElKevbo (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The current influx of single-purpose editors is one reason I have started an RFC below. szyslak  ( t ) 04:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll suggest then that we leave him on the List of UCR Alum article and remove all of the names (including the Nobel Prize winner what's-his-name) from the alum subsection of the UCR article. --S. Rich (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)15:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Page protected
The article has been page protected for a week due to continued edit warring. Please take advantage of the current discussion and attempt to come to an informed consensus. Thank you Calmer   Waters  03:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC: James Eagan Holmes
Should the article mention that James Eagan Holmes, the suspect in the 2012 Aurora shooting, attended the university? szyslak ( t ) 04:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
No.   That would be WP:UNDUE in spades. There are four alumni listed, and no other former students. The four alumni are presumably notable for having done something worthwhile with their education. The gunman is notable for having gone off the rails, which seems unlikely to have anything to do with his education. This could only be construed as guilt by association. This article would have to get much larger before a mention of the gunman would swim into focus without being unduly emphasized. Abhayakara (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Would most reliable sources, such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, note that UC Riverside was the alleged gunman's alma mater in describing notable points about the university? Doubtful. Mentioning that he attended UC Riverside would be appropriate for a biographical entry on him, but mentioning him in the university's entry would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Dezastru (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No: the shooting happened outside university and no connection between his education and university was ever found. This proposal to me is equal to mentioning him in articles about all the places he attended: fast food restaurants, hospitals, streets, etc. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No: As per my original comments (above), inclusion is not appropriate. As consensus is turning towards non-inclusion, I've stricken my earlier suggestion that we leave all names out of the particular subsection.--S. Rich (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes: This is no different than listing other notable alumni in university articles. The value judgments being placed on this are highly inappropriate, particularly if those judgments are being made to protect the reputation of this university. If editors want to say that this individual is not notable enough, then that may be in line with our practices. But to say that "the university shouldn't be associated with him" or anything along those lines is misplaced and a blatant insertion of a point of view. And if you're going to go down the road of "what he did isn't related to the university" then you have a lot of work to do in other articles removing all of the artists, musicians, politicians, etc. whose notability isn't directly linked to their academic work. ElKevbo (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Weak No: Clearly every alumnus with a Wikipedia article is notable per Wikipedia standards, or else they wouldn't have articles. The notion of only selecting the "very most notable" alumni in the main article leaves a lot of room for value judgments and thus edit wars. That said, it seems to me that someone who is only notable in his own right under WP:BLP1E cannot be seen as "very most notable" in any context at present. Billy Collins, by contrast, is notable for a long and very public career as a major contemporary poet. Still, I find the argument compelling that excluding an alum because his notability is based on a bad act may constitute a bit of boosterism and (good-faith) violation of NPOV. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No, with caveat Typically, I would !say yes in a situation like this, but the list of alumni at University of California, Riverside is only 4 entries long, and I would say that Holmes isn't among the top 4 most notable alumni at this university. However, if that section were to be re-written to have a longer list of example alumni, say top 10 or more, then Holmes would definitely be on that list. He should definitely be listed at List of University of California, Riverside people.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply -- Holmes is included in the list article, so his connection to UCR is not excluded. That leads to the issue of whether he should be included on this page. Editorial (and value) judgment judgment comes into play in any editing discussion/decision. For example, it's common to list Nobel-prise-laurates (or other super-notable people) placed at the top of various lists. So the question is whether to include him here, on the main UCR page.  To answer that question we should consider weather including him here is UNDUE (a value judgment) in light of his temporary notability for this single event.--S. Rich (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the meta-question of exactly why a person would be included on this page is interesting, but it seems very clear to me that if a person is included on this page merely because he or she is notable, and went to UCR, that's a poor criterion for inclusion.  There ought to be a stronger connection than that—the fact that the person went to UCR ought to have been somehow instrumental in their becoming notable.   It seems to me that by listing the person in the article, you are making the statement that this is the case—that their notability is connected to UCR.   So the statement should be true.   If it is not true for the people currently listed, then they shouldn't be listed either.   I think it's pretty clearly not true for the gunman. Abhayakara (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable opinion but it's very far out of line with current practice. You have a lot of articles to edit if that is the standard you believe we should enforce in college and university articles!
 * And that is the problem I have with this discussion: Everyone is content to look the other way as alumni are added to this and other articles when those alumni have (a) trivial notability and (b) a tenuous connection to the institution. But now that an alumnus who reflects poorly on the university has been added to this article, a group of editors emerges from the woodwork to create a new, POV-based standard that has not been and will not be enforced anywhere else.  ElKevbo (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The existence of an article where something is done badly is no justification for doing the same thing in a different article. I think this case and, e.g., the case of Ted Bundy are excellent examples to show that the status quo that you report, if it in fact exists, is wrong and should not be Wikipedia policy. Abhayakara (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I look forward to you joining those of us who regularly edit college and university articles where you can help us remove all other non-academic alumni from those articles. That will go over really well! ElKevbo (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No: Notable implies distinguished - and for the well reasoned opinions above. Mcusa (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Notable implies distinguished." Huh?  Are you arguing that we should only write about "distinguished" people in this encyclopedia, omitting criminals and others who have made an impact on the world simply because they aren't "distinguished?" ElKevbo (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not the case at all. Holmes (and a lot of others) is in the UCR list article. Besides, he has his own article. In any event, WP does look at WP:SCHOLAR in the academic environment, and does so in the context of that environment. --S. Rich (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I still don't get it. Are you advancing the idea that only those who meet WP:SCHOLAR should be included in this and other articles about colleges and universities?  Setting aside the fundamental issue that the notability guidelines apply only to article subjects and not to the content of articles, that seems extremely problematic since that would omit all non-academics completely.
 * I'm really not trying to be argumentative. But I simply don't see a workable principle underlying the decision to omit this individual from this article, especially if you accept the view that our guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive.  The widely accepted and rarely (?) challenged practice in college and university articles is to include notable alumni without regard to their status as academics, how closely linked they are to the college or university, and whether their notability is positive or negative.  If we are going to change our practices then let's do so.  Ignoring them to carve out an exception for this one individual in this one article simply because his notability is derived from negative circumstances is a huge mistake.  We need to operate from sound principles, not immediate emotions. ElKevbo (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No as per Dezastru's comments above. Similarly, Ted Bundy is not listed in the notable alumni section of his alma maters but is listed in the pages of ____ university people as Holmes is. That seems to be the norm. Ayzmo (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment Holmes is an allegedly notable criminal. Otherwise he's nobody. If Wikipedia has him on this list by virtue of notability, it presumes his guilt (in a subtle way). Some BLP problems there, possibly. Oppose, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. This isn't a court of law.  We all know that he did it.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As the discussion does not seem to have any new points forthcoming, I suggest we close it with a decision to keep Holmes out of the UCR article.--S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 02:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You're all dead set on making the wrong decision for reasons that run contrary to some our foundational principles but I know when I'm in the minority. Let's move on. ElKevbo (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's time to close. szyslak  ( t ) 08:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Endowment
NACUBO is a very useful source because it standardizes endowment data, but I believe it should only be the "official" source for private colleges and universities and should be used with caution for public universities. In the case of the University of California system, NACUBO seems to report only the endowments managed by the UC schools' Foundations, and does not include the endowments managed on behalf of the UC schools by the UC Regents (see p.4 of http://www.ucop.edu/treasurer/_files/report/UC_Annual_Endowment_Report_FY2011-2012.pdf for details). Therefore, I believe the UC endowment data reported by the UC Treasurer's Office is relevant and should be shown in Wikipedia articles for UC schools instead of NACUBO's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor321 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on University of California, Riverside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215160026/http://www.pe.com:80/localnews/rivcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_D_hinderaker25.4033be3.html to http://www.pe.com/localnews/rivcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_D_hinderaker25.4033be3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090214121034/http://www.pe.com:80/localnews/environment/stories/PE_News_Local_S_china17.3e41f93.html to http://www.pe.com/localnews/environment/stories/PE_News_Local_S_china17.3e41f93.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070309091424/http://www.pe.com:80/sports/college/ucr/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_percival_ucr.1dc3b54.html to http://www.pe.com/sports/college/ucr/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_percival_ucr.1dc3b54.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on University of California, Riverside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090214112740/http://www.pe.com:80/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_patent27.1834716.html to http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_patent27.1834716.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090213202440/http://www.pe.com:80/sports/college/local/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_locals_20.32e0a2c.html to http://www.pe.com/sports/college/local/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_locals_20.32e0a2c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 one external links on University of California, Riverside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090213202355/http://www.pe.com:80/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_medskl23.368812d.html to http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_medskl23.368812d.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215162213/http://www.pe.com:80/lifestyles/stories/PE_Fea_Daily_D_dbltrk1128.1e28499.html to http://www.pe.com/lifestyles/stories/PE_Fea_Daily_D_dbltrk1128.1e28499.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100615054559/http://www.pe.com:80/localnews/highereducation/stories/PE_News_Local_S_hiednotes11.468022b.html to http://www.pe.com/localnews/highereducation/stories/PE_News_Local_S_hiednotes11.468022b.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090214111809/http://www.pe.com:80/sports/college/ucr/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_ucr_women_prev_07.3e82722.html to http://www.pe.com/sports/college/ucr/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_ucr_women_prev_07.3e82722.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100615054012/http://www.pe.com:80/sports/college/ucr/stories/PE_Sports_Local_W_ucr_women_22.466fbef.html to http://www.pe.com/sports/college/ucr/stories/PE_Sports_Local_W_ucr_women_22.466fbef.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100615054001/http://www.pe.com:80/sports/college/local/stories/PE_Sports_Local_W_ucr_women_07.46bb515.html to http://www.pe.com/sports/college/local/stories/PE_Sports_Local_W_ucr_women_07.46bb515.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100615055523/http://www.pe.com:80/sports/college/ucr/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_ucr_base_05.3f2ca3f.html to http://www.pe.com/sports/college/ucr/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_ucr_base_05.3f2ca3f.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215162551/http://www.pe.com:80/columns/jimalexander/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_jacol24.411f3dd.html to http://www.pe.com/columns/jimalexander/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_jacol24.411f3dd.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100615055533/http://www.pe.com:80/sports/college/ucr/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_ucr_notes_30.3e43232.html to http://www.pe.com/sports/college/ucr/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_ucr_notes_30.3e43232.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on University of California, Riverside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080517002201/http://www.pe.com/localnews/riverside/stories/PE_News_Local_D_bagpipes11.3ab535f.html to http://www.pe.com/localnews/riverside/stories/PE_News_Local_D_bagpipes11.3ab535f.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on University of California, Riverside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160325191328/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings-2015/national-universities-rank-all.php to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings-2015/national-universities-rank-all.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808175051/http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/citrus_history.pdf to http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/citrus_history.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://studentlife.ucr.edu/Student%2BOrganizations/Fraternity%2Band%2BSorority%2BLife.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on University of California, Riverside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516225553/http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/stat/headcount_fte/oct2007/er1rvh.pdf to http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/stat/headcount_fte/oct2007/er1rvh.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.inthenews.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=14037
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080703195130/http://out.ucr.edu/campus/100best.htm to http://out.ucr.edu/campus/100best.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808175051/http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/commserv/FS000302Enroll.pdf to http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/commserv/FS000302Enroll.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808175053/http://www.ucop.edu/sas/publish/aa_final2.pdf to http://www.ucop.edu/sas/publish/aa_final2.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.inthenews.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=3472
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808063212/http://www.athletics.ucr.edu/administrative/mascot.html to http://www.athletics.ucr.edu/administrative/mascot.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on University of California, Riverside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121116135812/http://www.pe.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20121002-riverside-medical-school-receives-preliminary-accreditation.ece to http://www.pe.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20121002-riverside-medical-school-receives-preliminary-accreditation.ece
 * Added tag to http://www.inthenews.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=13592
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20021017025918/http://www.info.ucr.edu/announce/20020722timeline.html to http://www.info.ucr.edu/announce/20020722timeline.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112115315/http://www.athletics.ucr.edu/pressreleasearchives/9900prarchives.html to http://www.athletics.ucr.edu/pressreleasearchives/9900prarchives.html
 * Added tag to http://www.commons.ucr.edu/default.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120717055113/http://cvangelnetwork.com/bizpress112606.html to http://cvangelnetwork.com/bizpress112606.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080703194954/http://out.ucr.edu/campus/studies_article2001.htm to http://out.ucr.edu/campus/studies_article2001.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808175051/http://or.ucr.edu/Files/pdf/annual2006.pdf to http://or.ucr.edu/Files/pdf/annual2006.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/itstartshere/report/fullreport.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.inthenews.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=12520
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070913185403/http://measuringup.highereducation.org/_docs/2006/NationalReport_2006.pdf to http://measuringup.highereducation.org/_docs/2006/NationalReport_2006.pdf
 * Added tag to http://library.ucr.edu/content/lfmp/fact-sheet.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.inthenews.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=9155
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106102628/http://sweeney.ucr.edu/col_topic.lasso to http://sweeney.ucr.edu/col_topic.lasso
 * Added tag to http://www.inthenews.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=3473
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212232055/http://housing.ucr.edu/CampusLiving/SpecialInterestCommunities.htm to http://housing.ucr.edu/CampusLiving/SpecialInterestCommunities.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070728123728/http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/~ucalhist/general_history/campuses/ucr/traditions.html to http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/~ucalhist/general_history/campuses/ucr/traditions.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213175854/http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2003-2/issue4/ne-censored.html to http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2003-2/issue4/ne-censored.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070721194608/http://www.gsa.ucr.edu/Council.html to http://www.gsa.ucr.edu/Council.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071210204918/http://www.athletics.ucr.edu/wsoccer/wsocarchive/ws0506archives.html to http://www.athletics.ucr.edu/wsoccer/wsocarchive/ws0506archives.html
 * Added tag to http://www.pe.com/sports/college/ucr/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_ucr_track_30.3eb279f.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6D0uOjQU3?url=http://studentlife.ucr.edu/UCRTRADITIONS/Pages/schoolSpirit.aspx to http://studentlife.ucr.edu/UCRTRADITIONS/Pages/schoolSpirit.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Founding Date of the University
According to the following sources the University was founded in 1954. The official UC brief history by the system office identifies that in 1907 the Citrus Experiment Station (forerunner of Riverside) was established. http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/programs-and-initiatives/faculty-resources-advancement/faculty-handbook-sections/brief-history.html http://broadbandcouncil.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/Content/Meeting_and_Event_Information/Center_for_Broadband_Policy_Broadband_Council.pdf http://ucop.edu/ucpath-center/work-for-us/riverside.html http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/sept16/b2.pdf http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov09/gb4attach2.pdf https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ucr-1316

The official timeline mentions the Research Station as a part of the history. That is recognizable, but it was a different type of institution. It also clarifies that 1954 was the year that the campus opened. http://www.ucr.edu/about/timeline.html.

For these reasons I believe that the date of founding should be identified as 1954, particularly because the UC Board of Regents and Office of the President identifies that date as the official date. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I strongly agree that 1954 should be used as the establishment date. I have many pieces of UCR memorabilia that state "est. 1954" on it. Plus, it literally was not UCR prior to that, it had a different name and did not claim to be a general university. LaCienegaBlvd (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

FA concerns
Reviewing this one as part of the ongoing FA sweeps. There are a several spots where this one has does not meet the featured article criteria. Mainly, the fact that the notable people list is largely uncited, and that sections such as Research, Student life, and Housing are based off of dated sources, statistics, and data. Hog Farm Talk 16:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Issues with this FA
Here are the following issues with this FA: Hopefull, these can be addressed. ~ HAL  333  20:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sandwiching of images
 * Dated material
 * Heavy dependency on primary sources
 * Unsourced material, mostly in the alumni section
 * Alt text is also needed

US Rankings
please update all University of California and California State University rankings. This years rankings are at the us ranking page. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges