Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 11

Abomination Quote Revisited
Okay. I'm willing to open a dialogue with those parties interested in discussing this section in a calm and reasonable manner. I am asking very nicely that people refrain from making the equivalent argument of "UCRGrad, you are trying to make UCR look bad, therefore, you are wrong about XYZ." (It is not appropriate.) I'm going to restate my original argument, and this time, I also ask very nicely that nobody plagiarize my phrases. Thanks. UCRGrad 03:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of complaining about a sentence that reads:

In a survey by StudentsReview.com, 52% of respondents said they would not attend UC Riverside again if given that chance, with one respondent calling the university "an abomination to higher education."

Multiple individuals have attempted to make a variety of arguments, in a seemingly desperate attempt to argue that the line be removed. So far, I have not read a SINGLE good reason why it does not belong. The fact of the matter is:

UCR students are likely to be dissatisfied with their education. Look at the paragraph: - PR ranks UCR as one of the worst colleges for TA's teaching too many upper-div classes. - PR ranks UCR as one of the worst colleges for poor teaching by professors - PR ranks UCR as one of the worst colleges for availability of professors for help - UCR is ranked LAST in the UC system overall - UCR has the WORST reputation in the UC system (based on peer assessment score) - 1 in 8 freshmen LEAVE UCR less than 1 year after arriving - 70% of freshmen require remedial math classes - 50% of freshment cannot read/write at the college level - GPA/SAT scores have been the lowest in the UC system - UCR has been ranked as one of the worst 20 schools in the nation for student unhappiness - More than HALF of students surveyed by SR.com would NOT go back to UCR if they could do it all again.

The list goes on and on and on. Is it surprising that a student wrote that the university is "an abomination to higher education?" Not really. Much WORSE has been written about the school on studentsreview.com - this one happens to be succinct and to-the-point. It would be unfair to select other quotes from the site that make the school sound worse than the above evidence suggests. Clearly, the "abomination" quote reflects the above statistics well. It also matches the textual context of the two preceding paragaphs on Admissions and "Rankings and Distinctions." Therefore, the quote is CONSISTENT with the published evidence about the university, it is IN CONTEXT with the prior two paragraphs, and it reflects a LIKELY opinion held by many students. There is absolutely no logical and rational reason for why the quote does not belong. I compliment Insert-Belltower for selecting it for this article. It's contributions like that that really add to the quality of the text. UCRGrad 03:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As Danny says above, most editors of this article have already reached a consensus regarding this sentence and its source. I'm sorry that you disagree but them's the breaks.  It's time to edit the article to reflect the consensus and move on.  --ElKevbo 04:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot use the survey results to establish what "consensus" is because it is so methodologically flawed that the numerical results are not usable - I have outlined this in detail above. Furthermore, Insert-Belltower and I clearly do not agree with removing this line, and therefore, there is no consensus.  Please refer to WP:consensus for a definition of the term as used on Wikipedia.  UCRGrad 05:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You say the survey results are methodologically flawed, but a small, self-selected sample of people, not one of whom is even known to have ever attended UCR, is not methodologically flawed? You are contradicting yourself if you accept one, but not the other. starkt 09:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't just say, I have provided an ARGUMENT and REASONS as to why the survey is methodologically flawed. Please respond to those specifically, if you disagree.  Furthermore, I have posted twice the methodology used by SR.com to enhance the validity of the results, which includes a sophisticated algorithm and computerized checks.  Please also refer to this, if you disagree. UCRGrad 13:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your statement, "You cannot use the survey results to establish what 'consensus' is because it is so methodologically flawed that the numerical results are not usable -- I have outlined this in detail above" is not an argument or reason why the survey is flawed, it is simply a statement that the survey is flawed. There is nothing to respond to here, other than to say that you have presented no arguments or reasons at all. As for what you claim is the reliability of studentreview.com, show me where it guarantees that its respondents went to Riverside or know anything about it. Show me that its respondents are a representative sample of students in general at UC Riverside. You talk about a "sophisticated algorithm" and "computerized checks" does not demonstrate either of the above. Furthermore, your claim that the "abomination" quote is supported by other evidence is not true. Being the worst in the UC system is like being the worst of an elite group -- you are still in that elite group. And no university that is recognized as part of such a group can rightly be considered an abomination to higher education. As for the attrition rate among freshman (only 1 in 8, not bad for a public university) and the need for remediation (I have already pointed out that most UC Berkeley freshmen needed to take remedial English at the time I attended that school), these do not support the "abomination" claim either. At best, you have Princeton Review saying things that, apparently, are out of date and probably questionable in their own right. In other words, you have no solid grounds for using the abomination quote. And most editors here agree with me. starkt 11:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the survey, the arguments as to why it is so methodologically flawed are provided here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_California%2C_Riverside/Archive_9#The_Above_Survey_Data_is_NOT_Admissable in Archive 9 of the TALK pages. Please read them.  With regard to the abomination quote, it was already removed a while ago - what is the point of even bringing it up again? UCRGrad 15:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It takes a lot of chutzpah to compliment your own sockpuppet. (edit: sockpuppet, meatpuppet, whatever. It's the same thing to me.) Danny Lilithborne 04:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Danny, I would appreciate it if you did not refer to Insert-Belltower as my sockpuppet again. I have not said anything uncivil to you, and I would expect you treat everyone here with courtesy if you expect there to be a compromise. Thanks!  UCRGrad 05:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not believe you're interested in compromise, and I see nothing uncivil in stating the obvious - I-B's opinion so closely mirrors your own that accusations of sockpuppetry are not out of line. At the very least, I believe that it's meatpuppetry (a friend you are asking to support you in the issue). The consensus is to rewrite the article and you refuse to accept this. Danny Lilithborne 05:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, so now I know what a sock puppet is. UCRGrad asked me if I was one. I guess that question fits in nicely with his "and I would expect you treat everyone here with courtesy if you expect there to be a compromise." starkt 09:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the first time you started editing this article was on 15 July. However, you wrote "As a matter of fact, I did edit this article the first time I saw it, two or three days ago, and it was quickly reverted back to the old version."  Now, how could Starkt have edited the article two/three days prior 15 July when your first edit under the username "Starkt" was actually 15 July?  The only NEW editor who also had his/her changes quickly reverted back was 66.214.118.69.  Your statement was interpreted as an admission that you were 66.214.118.69.  If you say that you were not, that's fine.  But can you explain what you meant then when you wrote the aforementioned? UCRGrad 13:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Starkt, can you please respond to the above? UCRGrad 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why bother? You expect me to keep track of every edit I make, and when? I've edited a lot of articles here, from various computers (at home and in cafes), in various locations. And, because I'm relatively new, it is only recently that I have consistently registered and used my username. If you think I'm somebody's sockpuppet, feel free to prove it and make use of the appropriate sanctions. Oh, and I would be remiss if I failed to mention that I'm so glad to have your courteous presence here on the discussion page. starkt 11:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Danny, you're a bit new to the discussion, so I can understand why you might come to some of these conclusion. Nevertheless, I will restate something that I've always stated: that I am a very reasonable person, and that if somebody has genuinely good arguments as to why something should be a certain way, and it is rational and survives counterarguments by others, there is no reason for me to oppose.  Secondly, if you haven't noticed, the opinions of Amerique, WHS, and ElKevbo also closely mirror one another as well - does THAT mean they are sockpuppets?  Do you see me accusing them of such?  No, because that would be uncivil.  Now I'm not going to sit here and defend against these accusations and personal attacks because it takes time away from my ability to respond to legitimate concerns about the article.  Now, I again ask you to please respect the rules of Wikipedia, maintain civility, assume good faith, and try to make relevant arguments - that is, ones that are actually pertinent to the discussion.  Accusing people of being sockpuppets or whatever is a waste of your time and mine because it accomplishes nothing and it infuriates people.   thanks. UCRGrad 03:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad, refer to the straw poll for the positions of Amerique, ElKevbo, and me to see how our opinions differ on various subjects. I realize that you don't feel the straw poll is admissable as an indicator of consensus, but you did agree that it did allow people to give their feelings on parts of the article. A quick glance at it will give notice that there are actually several areas where the three of us disagree. Compare this to the responses you and I-B gave, which showed that the two of you agreed on every subject and felt there was no bias whatsoever in the article. Even before the straw poll, we had previously voiced different opinions on various aspects of the article. In addition, none of us three have been previously confirmed as puppeteers unlike you and I-B, so there is a basis for Danny's accusations of possible meatpuppetry, whether true or not. Also, allowing someone else to judge you as a reasonable with regards to debate person would probably be better than you bestowing that quality upon yourself. For example, I think that I'm the most awesome person in the world. However, just because I think this doesn't make it true. --WHS 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, an RFCA already confirmed that I-B and I are distinct people. A reasonably intelligent person could also read our contributions here and figure out that we have distinct writing styles.  There is absolutely no basis for these accusations.  How many RFCA's will it take?  2? 3? 10?  After 100 RFCA's that confirm we're distinct people, are you THEN going to believe the truth - that more than one person might disagree with your camp?  No matter how much you hope/wish/pray that I am Insert-Belltower, it just doesn't make it true.  Finally, obviously it would be impossible to find a neutral third-party to "judge" who is reasonable and who is not.  However, you will find that if you are reasonable or you have good arguments, people have no other choice but to agree with you, including myself. UCRGrad 13:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please link to this "RFCA", as I could not find CheckUser cases for either you or I-B. Danny Lilithborne 21:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The relevant RFCU is here. Apparently it's the one month they haven't imported into the "new" format or archive or whatever it is they do with old RFCUs.  It covers both UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower.  --ElKevbo 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, ElKevbo. I'll take that into account. Danny Lilithborne 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So now that we've established that I am not the same person as I-B, I am politely asking Danny to cease with the personal accusations and attacks on me, especially the sockpuppet allegations. Everybody deserves respect here, even those whose opinions you don't necessarily agree with.  UCRGrad 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We haven't established anything. I said I'd take it into account. Danny Lilithborne 11:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad, your response is exactly why one shoudn't call him or herself a reasonable person. You've again ignored the entire premise of everything I stated. Nowhere did I say that you and I-B may be the same person. If I did or ever have in the past, the please, point out to me where that occured. Now, if you notice in my comment, I said that there is a basis for meatpuppetry, as both you and I-B have engaged in similiar behavior before. And, you don't think it's a bit of a logical fallacy to conclude that you're right and reasonable because you agree with yourself? No one else here has has "no other choice but to agree with you", so again, I'd hardly be so eager to give yourself such compliments. --WHS 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe I was responding to Danny Lilithborne, not you.  But just as an aside, just because two people agree that this article is high quality and unbiased, it doesn't necessitate that we are meatpuppets.  The four admins agreed that this was  "pretty decent college article."  I agree.  Does that make them MY meatpuppets too?  UCRGrad 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that someone has already investigated claims of sockpuppetry and found no evidence linking these two users. Insert-Belltower is a known known sockpuppetteer although he does not appear to have practiced this since those incidents in April and he denies the charges.  There is, however, evidence that these two users may be meatpuppets.  --ElKevbo 05:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also wish to add that UCRGrad is also a known sockpuppeteer who, like Insert-Belltower, denies the charge. He also does not appear to have engaged in this practice in the past few months.  --ElKevbo 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not I-B or I engaged in sockpuppetry several months ago a) does not affect any of you, and b) does not change the validity of any of our arguments. The admins have already taken these charges into consideration and only cautioned me not to engage in this activity again - it did not change their standpoint on the article, nor should it for anyone else here.  Unless you can establish how on earth this is relevant to the article NOW, I can see no other good reason to discuss it.  Can you? UCRGrad 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He hasn't admitted to his past sockpuppeteering recently, but I believe this request from I-B qualifies as an admission of guilt. --WHS 06:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to overlook the possibility that there might be sockpuppetry going on. If this point of view is the unbiased one, you'd think more than two people would stand by it. Danny Lilithborne 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You can go ahead and make this about me or UCRGrad, but those allegations don't replace coherent agruments about the content of this page. This user chooses reason over accusation on this TALK page. Have a nice day. Insert-Belltower 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Amerique and WHS, I would like to hear your thoughts on the this quote as well. I am attempting to continue the dialogue that was interrupted by the advocacy (now terminated) and the vandalism by the unregistered user. UCRGrad 05:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already given my thoughts on the subject prior to the advocacy which I'm fairly certain has been made clear to all involved editors. In my opinion, it would be more productive to gauge how editors who are newer to the article feel, or older ones who haven't yet weighed in. --WHS 06:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have admitted on several occasions that your response to the above argument was uncivil. This is an opportunity to provide original counterarguments.  Up to you. UCRGrad 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with WHS. My position hasn't changed with regards to the possible compromise using the "no pride" quote instead of that one, as the "abomination" quote, again, offers no explanatory value whatsoever. Sure, someone voiced the opinion, who cares? At least with the other quote we have someone trying to rationalize the multiplicity of such negative opinions, which also seems much more neutrally representative of the portion of survey respondents who claimed they would not return to UCR, if this information should actually be included at all given your earlier admonitions against including any elements of complementary context for US News/PR rankings and other data in academics.--Amerique 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Amerique, I've provided many reasons why the "no pride" quote was not an acceptable alternative, an account of the fact that it contained horrible grammar, incoherent structure, words like "alot" [sic], and was difficult to understand. However, it is perfectly reasonable to replace the "abomination" quote with a superior one, should one exist.  I have no objection to using a different quote, so long as you can demonstrate that it is more appropriate and/or superior.  In addition, I would have no objection to removing the "abomination" quote, so long as you can demonstrate that it is unquestionably inappropriate here. UCRGrad 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We have already demonstrated that, using the logic and reason that you claim you will accept, and you still reject it. starkt 09:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have stated that the equivalent that YOU FEEL that the quote is inappropriate, but you have not demonstrated why that is. Remember, your arguments must survive scrutiny by counterargument!  Regardless, the quote was removed by an administrator, at the request of Danny here, so it's a moot point.  My policy is to respect administrator decisions. UCRGrad 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't merely stated that I FEEL that the quote is inappropriate. I have shown that it is by pointing out that studentreview.com cannot be shown to be representative of the views of UCR students. Specifically, the sampling makes no attempt to be representative of the student body; it merely consists of a few people who happened to know about that website and decided to post a review. The sample is very small, and there is no assurance that any of the respondents ever went to UCR. Instead of replying to these arguments, you claim that what I say "must survive scrutiny by counterargument." You have made no valid counterargument. In fact, your talk about scrutinizing with counterarguments is laughable under the circumstances. starkt 10:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point. I would be willing to compromise and include both quotations in the aformentioned section, as long as they flow together reasonably well. Insert-Belltower 20:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC) edit: You are welcome to look for another quote, other than the "no pride" statement; perhaphs there are some that are more descriptive and less logically fallacious.Insert-Belltower 20:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * i already looked around that site twice than that was the only quote that did a halfway decent job of explaining the multiplicity of negative opinions contained therein. i understand how "ucr students have no pride for their school" can seem circular if you see the issue of "no pride" as the school's fault rather than the students. while any discussion regarding whether this is a cause or an effect could go either way, it seems to me that as the subject of that paragraph is mainly student/alumni statistics if we should even have a quote at all from that site we should pick one that actually tries to account for the negative opinions, however poorly, rather than just expresses one, badly.--Amerique 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I do not think that we should pick a statement/quote BECAUSE it explains a negative fact, but I don't object to a statement/quote that just-so-happens to account for a negative fact, so long as it is relevant. I think this is the fine distinction I've been wanting to make.  The reason is that in the first instance, an individual is actively seeking to add positive bias, by purposefully trying to "soften" or mitigate a piece of negative information.  In the second instance, it qualifies as the mere inclusion of relevant information to the article, which should be encouraged. UCRGrad 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well given that, I would have no problem with inserting the "no pride" quote in addition to the abomination quote. Sounds like a plan. Insert-Belltower 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to disagree to disagree, but two quotes is overdoing it, esp for such minor information.--Amerique 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like another attempt to circumvent discussion to me. Danny Lilithborne 02:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Amerique-- it looks like an ADMIN removed the abomination quote. I have no objections to the "no pride" quote being added only now. Thanks. Insert-Belltower 11:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Danny, instead of attacking editors based on your personal beliefs about their intentions (which violates several WP rules), perhaps you could add to the discussion instead? For instance, why do you agree or disagree so far? UCRGrad 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe my statements constitute attacks based on WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL, and your question is too vague. I answered the straw poll, and debate is happening below.  This particular discussion is over; neither party is going to change their mind. Danny Lilithborne 05:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, when you state that an editor is intentionally trying to make UCR look bad (or the equivalent of this), it is considered a violation of WP:AGF. UCRGrad 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm stating nothing, I'm saying it "looks like" it, so I'm not assuming bad faith, merely making observations. Danny Lilithborne 11:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement was removed by an admin. Is there a reason for this debate to continue? Danny Lilithborne 22:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

UCR's StudentsReview stats compared with other UCs
To see how UCR's StudentsReview ranking compares with those of other UC schools, I've looked up each UC's page. First, here is the number of students who would return to the school versus the number who wouldn't. All UC schools are listed except Merced (which doesn't have an SR page) and San Francisco (whose SR page has no reviews).


 * Berkeley 92/43
 * Davis 29/22
 * Irvine 16/18
 * Los Angeles 58/24
 * Riverside 23/21
 * San Diego 23/31 (not counting three negative ratings on a separate page: )
 * Santa Barbara 39/13
 * Santa Cruz 27/25

Here's the percentage of those who would not choose their school again (not counting the separate San Diego page). In this case, I've ranked the schools from most negative to least.


 * 1) San Diego 57.41%
 * 2) Irvine 52.94%
 * 3) Santa Cruz 48.08%
 * 4) Riverside 47.73%
 * 5) Davis: 43.14%
 * 6) Berkeley: 31.85%
 * 7) Los Angeles 29.27%
 * 8) Santa Barbara 25%

As noted on StudentsReview's home page, 37% of all SR participants would not choose their school again. In other words, all but three UC schools are above average in how many SR reviewers wouldn't choose them again, and three UCs are worse in this regard than Riverside. This makes even the mention of UCR's SR statistics even more irrelevant if it's being used to prove that UCR's a lousy school. szyslak (t, c,  e ) 23:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WOH, hold on. WHO here is trying to prove UCR is "a lousy school?"  I, for one, do not believe so.  WHERE in this article does it conclude "...and therefore, UCR is a lousy school."  Before we can move on, I need you to understand that nowhere does the article use statistics to "prove that UCR's a lousy school."  I have no idea where you're getting this from. UCRGrad 05:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ever heard of damning with faint praise? In this case, we're not even talking about praise. "the worst"..."an abomination", combined with the ommission of such positives as "UCR is a campus of the world renowned University of California", any positive things students might have to say about the school, and so on. Just what conclusion are people supposed to draw from your emphases and ommissions? starkt 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with your reasoning here is that your conclusion is inaccurate. No one here is trying to make UCR look like a lousy school. The purpose the statistic is the provide encyclopedic information regarding alumi perspectives. For this purpose, mentioning the other schools' alumi retero-perspective in this context is irrelevant.


 * Insert-Belltower ... so basically, it's okay to compare UC Riverside to other UC schools when pointing out that UCR is last in blah blah blah, whatever category. But when someone tries to compare UCR to other UC schools in order to show that UCR may not be as bad as its stereotypical reputation, you say that it's irrelevant to make that comparison to the other UC's?  So it's only relevant to compare UCR to the other UC's when it does not compare favorably to UCR?  Teknosoul02 03:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WOH, hold on. UCR is being compared to other UC schools using criteria that are very commonly used by publications that deal with colleges - e.g. US News, Princeton Review, etc.  If you feel that the article has left out an important and pertinent area that UCR should be compared in, please tell us.  UCRGrad 05:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It has just been pointed out to you. UCR is average among UC schools in the number of its students who would choose the school again after having attended it. starkt 12:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is it important to show comparisons in the first place? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a school counselor. If people want to use Wikipedia as a resource to research schools, they should be able to do so without having another opinion brought upon them by Wikipedia itself.  That's what WP:NPOV is all about. Danny Lilithborne 05:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wikipedia is not a school counselor. However, a noble goal of any article is to provide useful and well-researched information for people to read.  One way to do this is to understand what facts an individual learning about UC Riverside would like to know about.  One logical question a person might have is how does UCR compare to "other UC's."  This is perfectly reasonable.  In academics and education, it is customary to make comparisons.  This is the purpose of rankings and such.  It has nothing to do with NPOV, as long as it is done objectively (and that means without negative OR positive bias)! UCRGrad 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Since this is a UCR article, it is appropriate just to mention UCR." Stop changing your mind. --WHS 20:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, in context, I was referring to a specific situation in which only UCR and UCI had failed to keep any Clery Act crime statistics - in such a case, it would be appropriate to mention just UCR (and not UCI), since the fact was used to qualify the UCR-only crime statistics (not UCR and UCI). I maintain, and have always maintained (even before any of you started editing here) that since UCR is a UC school, it is appropriate and expected that comparisons are made to other UC's, in the spirit of making this an informative and useful college article (as opposed to a reiteration of UCR recruitment pamphlets). UCRGrad 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, so now it makes sense in context huh? Hmm. Anyway, I don't like this double standard you're setting on what things should be compared to other UCs and what shouldn't. Perhaps mention that other UCs miscategorized crimes then?--WHS 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no double standard. I have already explained (above) how each policy applied to justify a statement is not in contradiction with the other. UCRGrad 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no double standard, but only through your point of view. Your explanation was inadequate, so I'll have to ask you to provide a better one. --WHS 03:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no double standard because I carefully explained how the contradiction you thought you found really didn't pain out. Now, you are welcome to directly address my explanation if you wish to pursue this further.  If you want to have a meaningful dialogue, you have to address arguments directly. UCRGrad 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is good that you pointed this out about the other percentages, because in the statement, "according SR, ONLY XXX of those surveyed would return to UCR," would be biased b/c of the word 'only.' It's good the that statement as it is now is not biased. Insert-Belltower 01:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No one here is trying to make UCR look like a lousy school. Mentioning statistics in the UCR article but none of the other UC articles certainly gives that impression. Danny Lilithborne 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your argument, Danny. I am not an editor of any of the other UC articles - how can I be held responsible for the content of the UC Berkeley article, for instance?  That being said, if I WERE to edit another UC article, I would definitely make the same kind of objective comparisons in the exact same categories.  For instance, there is no question that I would write that UC Berkeley was ranked the highest by UC News in the entire UC system.  That just goes without saying! UCRGrad 05:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say it shows bad faith to hold one article to a particular standard and not hold a comparable article to the same standard. There's definitely a reason to suspect bias.  It would be like emphasizing crime rate statistics in the Chicago article but not caring either way about the Los Angeles article. Danny Lilithborne 05:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Danny, the editors of this article are not necessarily responsible for the content of other articles. We strive to make the UCR article the best it can be, irrespective of what other UC articles are like, etc.  Unfortunately, it is impossible to have a consistent "standard" of how a college article should be written.  In fact, there is none.  If editors of the UCLA article don't include the US News rank, that's up to them.  However, it would be inappropriate to exclude this vital information from the UCR article, just because the UCLA article does.  UCRGrad 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "We strive to make the UCR article the best it can be..." "We" meaning you and Insert-Belltower. I don't notice any editorial participation going on by other editors here. starkt 12:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "We" refers to the almost everyone here except for you, who have made a good-faith effort to attempt to improve the article. And if you want to be technical, the individual who has contributed the largest amount of actual text here is Amerique, not me or I-B.  UCRGrad 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't provided an evidence that any of the editors here are holding a comparable article to a higher or lower standard. The facts are the facts. Whether you personally like them or not is a different discussion.Insert-Belltower 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't attempt to distract from the issue at hand, ie. double standards for different articles. Facts are facts.  Why aren't you kicking up this fuzz in any other UC thread? Danny Lilithborne 00:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as "double standards for different articles," simply because you and I do not SET standards for articles. I am not the "master editor" of all the UC articles.  Therefore, it is not up to me to determine content of articles that I am not an editor for.  Unless you can demonstrate that there is a single "gold standard" format and guideline for how a college article should be written, it is not appropriate to say "XYZ college article does/does not say ABC, therefore, the UCR article should/should not."  UCRGrad 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The double-standard at issue here concerns your ignoring those aspects of UC Riverside that compare favorably to other UC schools while emphasizing those areas in which it supposedly compares unfavorably. All of this talk about the lack of a "gold standard" for articles about colleges in general or the fact that you haven't written articles about other colleges is beside the point. starkt 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm kicking up any "fuzz." As for other UC articles, I'll get to them eventually but I choose to focus on UC Riverside for the time being. Perhaps you can help out on the UC Irvine article in the meantime.Insert-Belltower 00:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I-B, perhaps you missed the entire POV Revisited subsection of the talk page, but it's not just the way facts are worded that can make an article biased. Selectively including information can produce that effect as well. Again, and I quote, "*While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased."--WHS 02:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. starkt 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WHS, I've already responded to this specific argument in the past. While I agree with the notion that bias can be introduced by selective inclusion of facts, such is not occuring in this article.  ALL of the statistics are in relevant areas that deal with academics, rankings, student life, gown/town relations, etc.  The facts and statistics that fall under the umbrella of these categories are not always positive - however, they need to be mentioned in a university article.  And it's not like we've written something completely irrelevant like "Unlike other UC's, Riverside is the only campus that begins with the letter 'R.'" UCRGrad 05:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You say, "ALL of the statistics are in relevant areas..." Perhaps. But you conveniently omit things that would tend to give one a more positive view of UC Riverside. For instance, you mention the fact that X number of students would not choose the school again, but fail to mention that the school is about average for UC campuses in this regard. At the same time, you point out all of the respects in which the school is below average or "the worst" among UCs. starkt 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And I also fail to mention that this number is also significantly worse than other schools across the country. The problem is that I am not convinced that the data from StudentsReview.com is rigorous enough to make COMPARISONS to other schools.  In order to say "one school is higher in XYZ than another school," you have to use special tests that show that the data is rigorous enough to show that a statistically significant difference occured.  No such statistical analysis was performed.  I think a judgement call should be made.  With data as borderline-acceptable as the StudentsReview.com surveys, I do not feel comfortable making such big conclusions.  All we should do is report the raw number (% of students surveyed who would not return) and leave it at that. UCRGrad 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The statistics you wish to include allude a non-neutral point of view and this is not acceptable. Reasonable people will draw conclusions from data comparing the school unfavorably to others. Danny Lilithborne 05:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All the statistics in this article are relevant and informative. They were not chosen to establish a non-neutral point of view, they were chosen because they were relevant and informative.  Perhaps reading these statistics would give some readers a negative impression of certain aspects of the school (particularly academics), but at the same time, this does NOT mean that the article is not written objectively.  For instance, a description of the hydrogen content in the Hindenburg balloon might lead people to think negatively of the design (because it is flammable), but describing the hydrogen does not necessarily mean there is a biased point of view.  UCRGrad 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You entire argument is based on unsubstantiated assumptions of what "reasonable people" might do. While this might make sense to you, this critique does not arise to the level that is acceptable. You will have to come with something more concrete. Thanks and have a great day. Insert-Belltower 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm making an assumption about what reasonable people might do, but we're writing an encyclopedia, not rehashing high school debate class. So far you and I-B are the only people who see nothing wrong with the statements as is.  Why do you suppose that is? Danny Lilithborne 21:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's me, I-B, and FOUR arbitrators who reviewed this article. While I appreciate your opinion, it just so happens that yours doesn't override that of four admins.  Perhaps you can explain why you have such a problem with the article?  UCRGrad 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad, you didn't really explain how that wasn't occuring in this article. All you did was making sweeping generalizations about my "camp", took my words out of context and claimed I was contradicting myself, then dismissed everything I said because you didn't agree with it. I'm fairly certain that most other editors in the article would agree that what I cited from the NPOV Dispute page does in fact apply here, perhaps nowhere more obviously than with this abomination quote. If you don't agree, feel free to ask them. --WHS 05:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is really nothing to discuss here. Student Review.com is not a credible source. The sample is self-selected. It is small. It is not representative. And there is not even any assurance that any of the respondents -- including the person who made the "abomination" statement -- even went to UCR or knows anything about it. Anyone who, in the face of these facts, insists that the use of the quote is relevant and unbiased, and claims that he or she is willing to entertain reasonable counterarguments while still maintaining that position, is clearly demonstrating bad faith. Now, I realize that we are directed as editors to assume good faith. And that is what I have done. I have assumed it until I have received overwhelming evidence that it isn't there. People here need to start editing and reverting, or need to lodge a complaint with the appropriate authorities of wikipedia, to finally get this resolved. starkt 09:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Starkt-- There has already been a full discussion on this TALK page regarding the credibility of StudentsReview.com. My I suggest that you read it over, then, if you still have concerns, come back and post a questions. Thanks and have great day. Insert-Belltower 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Insert-Belltower. I'm aware that there has been a full discussion on this TALK page regarding the credibility of studentreview.com. Included in that discussion is the statement I made above. Right up there, just above your suggestion. May I suggest that you read and respond to it? Thanks and have a great day. starkt 11:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A clarification: I compiled these statistics to show that the StudentsReview statistic and quote don't say anything special about UCR. I'll grant this to UCRG and I-B: SR does prove a few incontrovertable facts: All of this could be said about every single university in the world. It's as true for Harvard, Oxford or Hollywood Upstairs Medical College as it is for UCR. Plus SR is an unreliable source to begin with, as everyone here but UCRG and I-B agree. (And no, the fact that they "watch for duplicate contributions" doesn't make it a reliable source). szyslak (t, c,  e ) 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * UCR has disgruntled students, and it has happy students
 * Some of them (44, to be specific) are disgruntled or happy enough to rant about it on a website
 * A single student called it "an abomination to higher education"
 * That is all


 * "(And no, the fact that they 'watch for duplicate contributions' doesn't make it a reliable source)" LOL. Thanks, Szyslak, you just made my day. starkt 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Szyslak, I guess I'm still not sure where you are coming from. I don't understand your definition of 'special' information in the context that you are using it. Indeed, StudentsReview does show contrasting data between different universities and colleges. For example, the Harvard Univ. survey says that ~25% of students would not return to Harvard if given the choice, which is a lower number when compared to some of the UC's. I'll agree with that alumi from every school express different views of their alma mater, however with varied proportions.Insert-Belltower 01:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When I said "the StudentsReview statistic and quote don't say anything special about UCR", I meant its ranking and reviews aren't remarkable in comparison to other UCs, or other schools in general. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 08:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't say anything special? The averate "wouldn't return" rate nationwide using SR.com's methodology is 37%. At UCR, it's 48%.  That's 30% higher than the the average for all schools surveyed.  It's 89% higher than at UCSB!  So there are substantial differences between this rate and that for other schools in UC and in the nation, according to SR.com.  Thus, I do not accept the argument that UCR's "wouldn't return" rate (we do not currenty have "rankings and reviews" from SR.com) is not remarkable compared to other UC's, or other schools in general. UCRGrad 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your claim that "there are substantial differences between this rate and that for other schools in UC" has already been disproven. UCR has an average "wouldn't choose it again" rate among UC campuses. San Diego, Irvine and Santa Cruz are higher. Only Berkeley, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara are significantly lower. If you don't believe me, just look at the comparison near the top of this page. Hmm, funny that we're already having to repeat things that have been said before. But no, the possibility that the person I am arguing with is not arguing in good faith would never, ever occur to me....starkt 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Szyslak, thank you for compiling information from StudentsReview.com. I agree with your summary of four "incontrovertable facts" above. However, I'm not sure what your argument/conclusion is from your data collection above. Can you restate it? Also, the site does substantially more than "watch for duplicate contributions," as you say. I have twice copied their methodology to validate their statistics - you might want to have a lock at them again. UCRGrad 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My conclusion is this: The SR statistic and quote don't show much of a distinction from other UC schools, or other universities in general. So, in addition to all the other problems with using SR as a source, the statistic is uninformative as well. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 08:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. starkt 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * see my response a few paragraphs above UCRGrad 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I note with some interest that this article appears to be the only one in Wikipedia which cites StudentsReview.com as a source. The University of Delaware article and the Yeshiva Ner Yisrael: Ner Israel Rabbinical College article each have a link to the site under "External links." While this is not conclusive evidence, I do think it is some evidence of the lack of noteability of this website and its statistics. I work in higher ed and I'd never even heard of the site until I started working on this article. I think spending any amount of text covering the "statistics" on this website is giving it undue weight. --ElKevbo 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, ElKevbo. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  So as I understand it, you're saying that since no other college article on WP explicitly mentions SR.com statistics, and two articles only link to it, it is not notable enough to be included in this article?  In response, the standard on WP for inclusion is "verifiability," not "notability."  Whether or not you believe that a site is notable or not does not change the fact that it contains verifiable facts.  Regardless of whether or not you've heard of this site before seeing it here, perhaps you might be interested to know that if you just wanted some "college reviews" and you typed that into Google, the VERY FIRST HIT would be StudentsReview.com.  Imagine what kind of traffic the site gets.  For someone who claims to work in higher education, I am a bitsurprised that you were not previously aware of the most widely known internet site for student college reviews. UCRGrad 15:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I could walk down the street getting verifiable quotes from drunks and homeless people about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I don't think their views would be of great interest in an article that purported to give an idea of what informed people in general thought about that conflict. starkt 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, you couldn't. Walking down the street and getting quotes from anyone is, by definition, NOT verifiable. UCRGrad 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's circumstantial evidence at best for an argument to not include a particular source to cite that few other similar Wikipedia articles reference the source. I think this particular evidencee is relatively strong but it's still circumstantial.  More importantly, this site, based on its methodology, is not reliable and should be excluded on those grounds.  [ElKevbo]


 * ElKevbo, I have absolutely no control over what other authors choose to place in other articles. In fact, I would have to say that the UCR article is much higher quality than many other college articles.  Remember, four arbitrators agreed that this was a "pretty decent college article."  I could easily say that those writing college articles SHOULD include statistics from StudentsReview.com, simply because it IS a well-known source of college reviews by students. UCRGrad 17:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The four arbitrators were wrong, assuming they said what you say they said. starkt 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that the maintainers of the site have no way of knowing whether a particular anonymous visitor to their site actually attends a particular school makes the entire operation suspect. A high Google Page Rank is no evidence of reliability. [ElKevbo]


 * Agreed. starkt 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your personal feelings or whether or not the admins are indeed wrong, it's irrelevant. What the admins say is the law of Wikipedia, and you and I and everybody else must respect that or find another encyclopedia to edit. UCRGrad 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The methodology for ensuring validity is already published on the SR.com website, and I've also copied sections of it here. No survey is perfect, which is why survey conclusion are not considered rigorous experimental designs by the scientific community.  However, WP requires verifiable facts, not double-blind placebo controlled studies (very rigorous experimental designs).  Therefore, your concern is not a reason that the data do not meet WP standards for sources.  Finally, a high google page rank was never used as evidence of reliability (the evidence for validity is the site's published methdology) - it was used directly to address your contention that the site was unheard of (becuase you've never heard of it) and not notable.   UCRGrad 17:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say go ahead and use studentreview as a source. Also use the other college rating guides, from the National Research Council to Fiske. Oh, but wait, don't use them -- they might give a positive impression of UC Riverside. Can't have that. starkt 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Further, I don't particularly appreciate your snide comment regarding my lack of knowledge of this website. Let's keep the rancor and needlessly aggressive comments out of this discussion.  --ElKevbo 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize if you felt that the comment was a snide one. It just seems highly suspect that someone who is involved in higher education has never heard of such a popular website that has over 40,000 reviews, is the most well-known student review website for colleges, and is the FIRST HIT on google. UCRGrad 17:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Higher ed" is a pretty large field with many specialties and professions. I don't work much admissions and public relations.  It's also entirely possible that this is one of those phenomenon that has grown so quickly from out of nowhere that it hasn't permeated the collective consciousness for those not directly involved in admissions or pr.  Of course, I still believe the methodology of this particular website is so flawed as to be useless for institutional research (as narrowly defined in academia) purposes.  That doesn't discount its popularity or its potential impact outside the academy and we would be foolish to dismiss it completely.  I imagine this is very similar to ongoing debate about other rankings wherein almost all credible researchers dismiss the rankings because of their flawed methodology while also failing to create or even suggest alternative methods by which the public and other constituents can judge and make informed decisions about higher education.  All a bit off-topic but tangentially related as background information on this debate which in some ways mirrors debates which have occured for several years now and will likely continue for several more.  --ElKevbo 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that some can make a strong argument that excluding SR.com data would be inserting a postive POV in to the article.Insert-Belltower 16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this? You can have your studentreview.com data in the article. But you also have to have a statement in the introduction saying that UC Riverside is a campus of the "very highly rated University of California". And then for each of your "negative facts", there will be a corresponding "positive fact". That would be the NPOV that you claim to support. starkt 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? I disagree.  Please demonstrate this argument.  --ElKevbo 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me get back to you on that, I've been super busy.Insert-Belltower 21:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Remaining Issues

 * I've got a problem with the "909 Stigma" section being here. I would have less of a problem with it being placed in Inland Empire (California) as a general description of the entire area; to have it here would mean that it should also be placed in eveything having to do with IE, such as Riverside, California, California Baptist University et al.  The sources also need help; a couple of Orange County rags and UrbanDictionary?! Danny Lilithborne 21:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UC Riverside is located in Riverside, CA, which bears the burden of the "909 stigma." Naturally, the articles about Riverside or the Inland Empire should contain the information in this paragraph, I agree.  However, the "909 stigma" also applies to the UCR campus and its students as well, on account of their location in the same geographical region.  Unfortunately, it is not possible to consider the campus in isolation, that is, separate from its integrated associations with it surrounding community and associated stigmata.  In fact, most individuals who are not from the immediate area associate UCR with two things: a) it's reputation as a "lesser UC" and b) its location in "Riverside," which is known for its smog, trailer trash, and drugs.  The OC Register is a verifiable source.  If you don't like the urban dictionary reference, please go ahead and remove it - it is superfluous in the presence of the OC Register article. UCRGrad 01:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I understand your logic. I don't feel as though reputation is a valid consideration for an encyclopedic article.  But putting that aside, this doesn't address the greater concern I have.  If you're going to talk about the "909 stigma" at all, a brief mention and a link to the Inland Empire article (with the section moved there) would suffice. Danny Lilithborne 05:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad, the purpose of wikipedia is NOT to promote negative reputations. Reputations are not tangible; they are made up by people in order to inflate their own sense of self-worth and put others down in the process.  Don't you understand that UCR's negative reputation has been created ONLY by those who went to "better" schools in order to make themselves feel superior?  It has NOTHING to do with the quality of the institution itself! Teknosoul02


 * The purpose of wikipedia is not to "promote" anything. The purpose is to report verifiable facts.  This article does this.  It does not say "UCR has a bad reputation."  It reports numbers and statistics, which are referenced.  I'm not sure where you're getting this "reputation" business from. UCRGrad 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Reporting verifiable facts is not sufficient as a criteron for a good encyclopedia article. The facts reported must give an accurate overall impression of the subject being discussed. Your selection of facts that reflect negatively on UCR, and omission of facts that reflect positively on it, lead to the very conclusion that you say the article doesn't draw because it doesn't actually say "UCR has a bad reputation". It doesn't have to say it for readers to draw that conclusion. And I think you are well aware of where Teknosoul02 is "getting this 'reputation' business from -- from you!. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The facts are what they are. I haven't selected ones in particular that make UCR especially bad.  For instance, if UCR ranks last among UC's according to US News, how am I supposed to change that? UCRGrad 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have selected particular facts, and omitted others, in order to make UCR look bad. We have given examples of this here. The fact that UCR ranks in the middle of UCs in terms of students who would choose the school again for example...You omitted that middle ranking; it is only when UCR ranks very low or last among UC schools in a particular area that you point out its ranking among UC schools. How convenient, Mr. "The facts are what they are". starkt 11:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reference I supplied is to the OC Weekly not the OC Register. Anyway, I would say that any information from local so cal "entertainment" news magazines should be taken with a grain of salt. Doubtless, that article was written by and for people in the OC to feel better about themselves at the expense of the IE, and while it may be taken as a document of those dynamics I don't think it should be used to perpetuate or enforce any stereotypical impressions.--Amerique 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, you're the one who provided us with the reference to begin with. The information in the article is 100% true, and the OC Weekly (not Register) is just the reference for it.  It's not like they made this stuff up.  UCRGrad 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if something was supposedly "verifiable", shouldn't we take into account the writer's own possible personal biases? For example, the University of Southern California has a reputation for having students who are known to be rude, arrogant, and stuck-up (not to mention coming from wealthy families).  If this information was provided by an article written by a UCLA student or alum, is that true? Teknosoul02 11:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The requirement on WP is "verifiability, not truth." So if the UCLA student can provide a reliable citation for such a statement (which probably doesn't exist), then it is immaterial that he is from UCLA. UCRGrad 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is another requirement on WP called "no POV". When you have good reason to suspect bias or an attempt to slam or overpraise, then the source must be considered discredited. starkt 11:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Before inviting further discussion on any outstanding issues:


 * I propose first formally closing the survey, or removing invitations to the survey from other wiki-pages, as Evil Saltine's recent edits have significantly changed the POV/phrasing of content in Admissions.


 * Then, I propose discussing how Evil Saltine's recent edits have affected the POV of Admissions content, if his edits were "enough" to render this section NPOV, or if other changes should be made to the content Saltine edited. Thanks,--Amerique 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how Evil Saltine's extremely minor changes of a few words here and there suddenly make transform the article from horribly-biased to neutral. If that's all you people wanted, you should have just proposed those changes in the first place, rather than go through all sorts of 3rd party intervention.  It would have saved a lot of us a lot of trouble. UCRGrad 01:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Take the example sentence, "UCR is a horrible school." Now, change the word "horrible" to "excellent", and it conveys an entirely different meaning even though just one word was changed. That's how some minor changes can suddenly transform the POV of an article. Although we didn't offer any specific changes, many of us have complained about the wording and prior attempts to change it were met with hostility from some editors, which is likely why it wasn't done sooner. --WHS 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Great example, except for the fact that there was no such dramatic change of meaning in any sentence by Evil Saltine - he just made minor phrasing changes here and there without changing the content or information conveyed. UCRGrad 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not to you, but I, and I'm sure others, saw a significant change due to the edits made by Evil Saltine. --WHS 22:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine. UCRGrad 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been open for two weeks and I think that we've gotten good, substantial input from editors both previously involved in the article and new. I think that you can close it and we can move on to deal with issues raised or addressed by the survey.  --ElKevbo 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the statement by Amerique and ElKevbo. Insert-Belltower 00:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, if there are no objections, I will delist the survey from WP: Straw Polls tomorrow, and place notice on the other UC talk pages that the survey is considered closed. I suggest that discussion regarding the further NPOV rendering of any areas identified as contentious by the survey begin with Evil Saltine's edits to Admissions, as he seems to have made uncontested progress in this section.--Amerique 00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to delist the survey, but keep in mind that the poll was basically filled out by people already involved with the article stating opinions that we already knew about -- it's not like we got any valuable third party input. UCRGrad 01:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Quit trying to downplay the survey and dismiss its results. We did get some third party input even if that input happened to differ from your own opinion.  --ElKevbo 05:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not dismissing its results. I am merely defining what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from said survey, based on widely-accepted scientific principles for doing so.  I have already invited everyone to comment on my discussion of what can and cannot be interpreted, and the discussion should be continued in the appropriate section of the TALK page. UCRGrad 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The survey has been unlisted from WP: Polls and is now considered closed. As for Evil Saltine's edits to Admissions, they were enough for me to currently consider this section NPOV.--Amerique 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First of, I'm very glad they got rid of the "abomination" quote. Despite UCRGrad's best efforts to retain it--he remains very insistent in keeping that quote for whatever reason, maybe he's trying to validate himself by thinking that it's the university's fault, not his--I'm glad the admin stepped in to delete that abominable quote.

There are some remaining issues that need to be worked out. The "Admissions" section could be phrased a bit more neutrally. There's one section about the vast majority of students needing to take remedial calculus, as if to imply that if you don't know how to do calculus by the time you are a freshman in college, you are a dolt. I find it quite amusing. I went to a very decent state university in the east coast, and I had to take pre-calculus! I have friends who went to top notch universities (including the Ivy League!), and they ALL had to take pre-calculus! It is not uncommon for students to take remedial pre-calculus in college. They have their reasons; some are simply not ready for calculus, others just want to take a refresher course to prepare them for calculus. Besides, calculus isn't exactly easy to learn and master. [Teknosoul02]


 * Agreed. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that you take it personally that you had to take remedial classes in college - and there's nothing wrong with that. However, you should leave your personal feelings out of the article - it is a verifiable fact and well-referenced that the majority of UCR students cannot read/write and do math at the college level, and there's no reason to remove this information.  Are you proposing that we add an followup sentence "but it's okay that you took remedial math because user Teknosoul02 and his friends had to as well?"[UCRGrad]


 * "I understand that you take it personally..." Where do you understand that Teknosould02 takes it that way? Your reference to personal feelings is uncalled for. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice job taking swipes at me, UCRGrad. Have you ever used calculus in your daily life?  I work as an analyst for a financial services company and I NEVER used calculus once in my job.  And I'm doing pretty damn fine, thank you very much.  I'd wager that MOST college-educated kids can't perform basic calculus.  unless you're studying to be an engineer or doctor, you DON'T need calculus to get a well-paid job.  I admit it doesn't hurt to have rudimentary knowledge of calculus, but stop making these swipes at me.  You have some nerve to accuse me of being uncivil, yet you're engaging in these ad hominem attacks.  Teknosoul02 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody is taking swipes at you, Teknosoul02. If you volunteer information about yourself and use it as an argument, it is fair game.  Your usage of profanity is prima facie UNCIVIL.  My response was that you should detach your personal feelings from the article content - how on earth is that an ad hominem?  Nobody is saying that you need calculus to graduate or succeed in life, nor is this implied.  However, pre-calculus is not considered college-level mathematics at UC, per the reference I provided in the article.  Recall that Advanced Placement (AP) classes in high school were considered college-level equivalents and there was a Calculus AP, but no Pre-Calculus AP (since it's not college-level).  As I stated before, it is largely irrelevant that you personally had to take pre-calculus in college and that most of your friends did too, just as it is irrelevant that none of my friends required pre-calculus at UCR. UCRGrad 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your statement "I understand you take it personally" is snide and amounts to taking swipes, whether you admit it or not. It is also ad hominem. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please explain how this is "ad hominem." Ad hominem is a deductive fallacy that occurs when a person draws a conclusion using a personal attack as a premise.  What conclusion was drawn from the statement "I understand you take it personally" used as a premise?  May I suggest that you look up complex terms before using them incorrectly.  UCRGrad 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "I understand that you take it personally that you had to take remedial classes in college - and there's nothing wrong with that" is a combination of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem and the fallacy of poisoning the well. I suppose you're right that you know much more about informal logic than I do. I was only a philosophy minor, after all. And your study of philosophy includes....?


 * A philosophy minor does not make you an expert in logic (and clearly not, in this case). Look up fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority (the inappropriate authority being YOU). For a self-proclaimed logic expert, you should know that the fallacy of ad hominem only occurs when a conclusion is derived from a personal attack as a premise.  That did not occur in this case.  Even if I stipulated that this was an insult/attack (which I don't), an isolated insult/attack is not, by itself, a fallacy.  UCRGrad 03:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So, since you know so much, I'm sure you'll now revise your views and recognize that focusing in on Teknosoul02's need to take calculus, and without any basis assuming that he/she would take it personally (as a negative, of course) that he/she had to take remedial work, is an attack upon the credibility of his/her argument by underlining his/her supposed deficiencies. [Starkt]


 * I never drew such a conclusion. YOU DID, in order to make it fit your fallacy of poisoning the well.  If you disagree, you are welcome to translate what I wrote into a syllogism and point out where the fallacy.  Since you were a philosophy minor, you should know how to set up the syllogism and quote my text for each step.  You won't be able to do it, though, because I never made that argument.  You did. UCRGrad 03:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It also poisons the well by attempting to discredit any further statements he/she might make. Anticipating any objections you might make, this is true whether you intended to do this or not; your statement speaks for itself. [Starkt]


 * Again, set up the syllogism - oh wait, you can't, because it isn't there. UCRGrad 03:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, you failed to respond to the substance of Teknosoul02's argument, which was that remediation is common nowadays among college students, especially when it comes to something like mathematics. You have also failed to respond to my example of students taking remedial English at UC Berkeley when I attended that school. Making personal attacks while not replying to the substance of the argument at hand is the very essence of ad hominem argumentation. starkt 11:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I already responded to Teknosoul's argument - he believes that remediation is common in college students BECAUSE he personally knows a lot of students who had to take pre-calculus too. I countered that by mentioning that NONE of my friends had to take remedial math, AND by stating that anecdotal evidence is unreliable anyway.  The latter argument also covers YOUR personal experience at UC Berkeley.  UCRGrad 03:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, what I think he is proposing is that this fact should not be highlighted if it is typical of most colleges or college students. I don't know offhand if his assertion is correct but if it is correct (and can be proven) then his proposal is a valid one and one which I would support.  Anyone have any stats to support or refute this?  --ElKevbo 22:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that most UC students at all campuses have to take some remedial work. So, if the standard is comparison to other UC campuses -- a standard that UCRGrad seems to rely on a lot -- then the highlighting of remedial work by UCR freshmen is probably unremarkable and not worth mentioning. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that the renowned University of California system is filled with remedial students? That's absurd. UCRGrad 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UC Berkeley's freshman class was filled with students who had to take Subject A (remedial English) when I attended that school in the 1970s. No one considered Berkeley's freshman class stupid. And the majority of freshman had to take Subject A. So I am not suggesting anything. I am telling you the facts of life. starkt 11:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, did you read the reference cited in the article before you asked if I had any "stats to support or refute thiS?" UCRGrad 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't asking you - it was a general question. One of the sources cited are meeting minutes which don't appear to cite the sources for the statistics given (I don't doubt their validity - I just wish they cited their source).  The other source has some good UC stats but I'm not seeing any other stats.  In particular, I'd like to see some stats on a regional or national scale.  The stats in the second source are also from 1999 so they're starting to get a bit dated.  I don't think it really affects the article much - I'm just curious.  --ElKevbo 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for clarifying. UCRGrad 05:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah - this appears to be useful in this discussion. According to this research (which appears to be methodologically sound - please correct me if I am wrong) "The California State University (CSU) system admits students from the top one-third of the state’s highschool graduating class....Combined, a shocking 59 percent of CSU freshmen had to take remedial courses in English and/or math."  Since UCR has an open admissions policy, it's no surprise that its students require remedial courses given that even the majority of CSU students, the "top one-thirds of the state's highschool graduating class," enroll in remedial classes.  I'd like to see or find some more stats to add to this discussion but I think that Teknosoul02 may be correct in that UCR students are no different than many other students in this respect i.e. the fact is not noteable or even interesting (in this article; it's a pretty shocking statistic and should be placed in a more general American college article if there is such a beast).  --ElKevbo 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, ElKevbo, CSU is not the same thing as UC - you do know this, right? The CSU schools are NOT national universities and are not directly comparable to UC Riverside.  UCRGrad 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that the CSU and UC systems differ in some ways has no bearing whatsoever on this particular issue. --ElKevbo 05:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it has bearing. It makes absolutely no sense to compare UCR to CSU schools, the latter of which aren't even national universities.  Why not compare UCR to community colleges or liberal arts colleges while your at it?  A fair and appropriate comparison would be made between UCR and other "similar institutions," -- examples of which would be other UC schools and other national universities. UCRGrad 05:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You keep using the phrase "national university." Unless I'm totally mistaken (and I don't think I am - this is an area that lies pretty close to my field and in which I have a graduate degree - but I could still be wrong!) that's not a real classification used by anyone other than US News and World Report.  Carnegie Classification, region, highest degree offered, consortial membership, and historical/traditional associations (including, in some cases, athletic conferences) are typical boundaries by which we divide institutions.  Your "national university" classification likely has its closely analog in the Doctoral and Doctoral/Research Basic Carnegie Classifications.
 * Anyway - the comparison is still useful as we're comparing student and not the institutions. And I think we currently don't have very good information with which to compare the students.  --ElKevbo 06:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The classification of "national university" is published in a highly-respected publications US News and World Report, and is carefully defined. I see no problem in using it.  Even IF you used the Carnegic classifications "doctoral" or "doctoral/research," you would STILL find that UC's an CSU's are NOT in the same category!  Look: http://www.washington.edu/tools/universities.html.  Note how only the University of California fits in this category.  Either way you slice it, the UC system is not directly comparable to the CSU system for the purposes of this discussion.  Heck, why don't we compare UCR to a liberal arts college, where virtually 0% of students are in "remedial English." UCRGrad 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If it helps, I would note that schools give remedial work to students who don't meet THEIR (the school in question's) particular standards of preparedness. So comparisons BETWEEN schools would probably be misleading. All statistics on remediation really tell you is that a school is not admitting and enrolling a fully qualified freshman class by the school's own standards of "qualified". This could be an involuntary or voluntary failure. Harvard, for instance, might, just for the heck of it (I know that "profanity" is forbidden here) decide that it only wants to admit marginal students, for a year or so, just to see if its brilliance can rub off on those students. Affirmative action could also come into play. Moral of story: the percentage of admitted students who need remedial work is really not worth mentioning, especially if one is trying to give an indication of the school's QUALITY in relation to other schools. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The purpose of mentioning the percentage of UCR freshmen requiring remediation is not "give an indication of the school's QUALITY in relation to other schools," as you say, but to provide a verifiable fact about UC Riverside. It is relevant, and it is informative.  There's no reason to exclude this valuable statistic. UCRGrad 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If mentioning the number of students needing remediation is not intended to give an indication of the school's quality in relation to other schools, but merely to include a verifiable fact about UC Riverside -- one that is in your words "relevant" and "valuable" -- please tell us how this fact is relevant and valuable. starkt 11:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will try to find some stats, but I know from personal experience that most college educated kids have little to no proficiency in calculus. Again, I have friends who managed to graduate from top notch universities (I'm taking Ivy League, NYU, etc.) and they had to take remedial pre-calculus while in college.  For you to degrade me b/c I wasn't ready for "calculus" makes me sick, UCRGrad.  Shut your mouth ... seriously.  I might have graduated from a lowly state university (not really ... it's a very decent school) but I'm making good money and I am happy with my job.  And I also don't waste my time bashing my alma mater on wikipedia.  Teknosoul02 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you feel sick, but nobody was degrading you here. If you are ashamed about having taken pre-calculus in college, you shouldn't mention it - if you do, you should expect people to address it.  That goes without saying.  If you have friends that had to take remedial pre-calculus in college, that's nice, but it's irrelevant.  I'm happy that you're making money and you're happy with your job, but again, this is irrelevant. UCRGrad 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything is irrelevant except what UCRGrad says. People, take note. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not ashamed of taking pre-calculus in college, b/c almost everybody I knew in college had to take pre-calc outside the math/science majors (and most students I knew were relatively bright...after all, we were attending a solid state flagship university in the East Coast). But my college offered courses in college algebra, geometry, trigonometry, etc.  However, i still have issues that 70% of UCR students had to take remedial math b/c they weren't "prepared for calculus".  I think that statement needs to be clarified so that "remedial math" is better defined.  Remedial math meaning needing to take pre-calculus (trigonometry) is far different than remedial math referring to students needing to take college algebra.  Most students likely had to take the former, a relatively smaller number had to take the latter.  Thanks.  Teknosoul02 11:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "not prepared for calculus" is basically the wording used in the references I used. "Remedial" is also a term used in the article.  The standards of your east coast public university are irrelevant here.  What is relevant is the standard at UCR and the UC system, which defines what is "remedial" and what is the expected level of mathematics of a college student.  Whether or not you're majoring in engineering or psychology, a pre-calculus course is considered remedial by UCR standards.  That's just the way it is. UCRGrad 23:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Another question I have is this: Does the UC school requires its students to demonstrate proficiency in calculus as a requirement for graduation? B/c if so, that's interesting.  At my alma mater, the only students who need to show proficiency in calculus are math, science, and quantitative business majors (analytical finance, acturial science, accounting, etc.).  Everybody else (including the humanities, education, art, etc.) are excluded from having to take calculus.  I was originally planning on majoring in business entreprenuership, so I wasn't required to demonstrate proficiency in calculus.  However, when I decided I wanted to go into analytical finance and accounting, I realized that my calculus was rusty so I had to take pre-calculus as a refresher of sorts to help me prep for calculus.  Of course, I never used calculus once on the job (and all the math work I do is on the computer), but I'm surprised that a university requires you to have proficiency in calculus (outside of the usual technical-oriented majors).  I thought that in college, you only had to demonstrate proficiency in college algebra??  Teknosoul02 23:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WOH, who said the university requires you to have proficiency in calculus? Where are you getting this stuff from?  UCRGrad 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that you seem to feel there is something wrong with not being ready for calculus, one would think that you would disapprove of any university -- such as Harvard, for example -- that did not require proficiency in calculus as a prerequisite for the awarding of the bachelor of arts degree. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with not being ready for calculus, unless you are a UCR student, in which case it is considered remedial. That's all. UCRGrad 23:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, the whole question of remediation strikes me as uninteresting, and we can dispense with mentioning how many students need it. starkt 11:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't get that from anywhere ... other than the article itself (playing Devil's Advocate here). I did read the reference, and while it's "true" that 70% of UCR students are not ready for calculus, it simply means that those students are unable to major in any of the "hard" sciences, but they can still major in everything else (education, humanities, liberal arts, some business majors, etc.).  How many students at UCR plan on majoring in a hard science anyway?  Unless they are doing that, they are not required to take calculus in college.

Again, playing Devil's Advoate here. The article gives the impression that if you are not capable of doing calculus in college, you're not capable of going to college. I want to clarify that taking "remedial" math DOES NOT mean having to take pre-calculus (unless one plans on majoring in one of the hard sciences). Remedial math should mean having to take college algebra, or something equivalent. There IS a big difference between having to take college algebra or geometry, and taking pre-calculus in order to prepare yourself for calculus b/c you want to major in a hard science. Then again, I'm not familiar with the UC system and maybe the UC system does have more stringent requirements in order to graduate? Thanks. Teknosoul02 11:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The articles gives no such impression of the sort. Quote me the line that even remotely implies that you're not capable of going to college if you can't do calculus.  That's preposterous. UCRGrad 23:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that we should just excise the "909" stigma section. Let me repeat: this article should NOT propagate negatie stereotypes of Riverside. I also gotta agree with Danny here: who the hell uses Urbandictionary as a reference on wikipedia???? [Teknosoul02]


 * For the billionth time, you can go ahead and delete the Urbandictionary refernce if you have a problem with it because it is just a superfluous citation - that is, the OC Weekly article suffices as the reference for that section (none of the information is reliant on urbandictionary). And please refrain from using profanity in the TALK page or elsewhere on Wikipedia. UCRGrad 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I shouldn't recommend that you read J.D. Sallinger's "Catcher in the Rye". It's full of that danged profanity. Any college graduate would be shocked, just shocked. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that you possess the literary license of J.D. Salinger in an attempt to justify your usage of profanity on a user talk page on a website where profanity is strictly forbidden!? UCRGrad 19:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm suggesting that you are pettifogging. "And please refrain from using profanity on the TALK page or elsewhere on wikipedia." Sure thing. And I'll also make sure to tuck in my shirt and stand up straight. starkt 12:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And please refrain from making personal attacks towards me. I merely expressed my opinion that it's unfair to characterize somebody as not being prepared for college because he can't do calculus math. Teknosoul02 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to twist everything I say into a personal attack - it's uncivil, just like your usage of profanity. Nobody is attacking you.  You don't need to put on a "show" and pretend like you've been severely injured.  This isn't a soccer match.  Thanks. UCRGrad 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You did personally attack Tenosoul. Anyone can see this above. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A personal attack would have been: "You're stupid because you had to take remedial calculus." Reminding this individual that his personal feelings/insecurities should not be used to justify removal of a verifiable fact is NOT a personal attack.  Do you see the difference? UCRGrad 19:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of replying to the substance of Teknosoul02's argument, you focused on his/her admission that he/she had done remedial work. Without any justification, you assumed that he/she took it personally (in a negative way) that he/she had to do this work. Yes, you did, indeed, personally attack him/her. starkt 12:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The alumni giving rate section bothers me greatly. When we are talking about a two or three time difference in the context of 5% versus 10 and 15%, there is NOT a whole lotta difference. I think this article should be added with the qualifier that: "Traditionally, the UC schools (and indeed state schools all over the nation) have had very low alumni giving rates. While UC Riverside has the lowest alumni giving rate at 5%, the top UC schools have not fared much better.  UCLA's alumni giving rate stands at only 16% while UC Berkeley stands at 15%." This conveys the negative factual information UCRGrad is so insistent in keeping while giving the reading a better sense of context. Teknosoul02 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, it's not very helpful to write "I agree" to every other statement. It's analogous to writing "me too" "me too" all over an internet discussion forum.  It doesn't add to the discussion, it doesn't add any weight to anyone's argument, and it just messes up the already difficult to follow structure of the talk pages. UCRGrad 19:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. starkt 12:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. UCRGrad 23:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. starkt 12:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that UC schools and state schools have lower than average alumni giving rates -- but when UCR's is 2-3 times as low as other UC/state schools, it's LOW. You don't need calculus to understand that a difference of 200-300% is A LOT.  The context you propose just does not add appropriate weight to this fact.  Why is it even important to give context to this particular statistic?  UCRGrad 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See, this is an example of the type of wording that makes the article biased. Yes, it is 200-300%, but since the Alumni giving rates are low anyway, 200-300% more or less doesn't make as large of a difference. For example, if I have 1 and then I take 200-300% of that, I have 2 or 3, which makes for a difference of 1 or 2. Now, if I have 100, and then I take 200-300% of that, I have 200 or 300 with a difference of 100 or 200. The difference between 1 and 100 is much larger number despite the fact that the percentages are the same. The percentage, while accurate, subtly makes the disparity appear larger than it is. --WHS 22:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Statement in question removed from the article. I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning, but I do agree that the line should be taken out.  UCRGrad 19:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. --ElKevbo 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * d'accord. starkt 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care either way. The line about "2-3 times as high" was put in many months ago in order to satisfy arguments from people in YOUR camp, not mine.  I didn't want it there to begin with, and I will now remove it.   Furthermore, I didn't put in the statement about "may be a function of low student happiness" - that is pure speculation and I am removing it.  None of this changes the information conveyed, and therefore I am satisfied with it.  I hope that you people can live with this compromise as well.  Honestly, the information needs to be conveyed, and I think you guys can help make it sound objective without making it sound positively biased. UCRGrad 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

another section that could be phrased more neutrally: "In order to attract more competitive applicants, UCR has invited home-schooled and other nontraditional students to submit a portfolio of their work in addition to test scores[20]." Having read the article itself, I see it as more of an attempt for UC Riverside to diversify and nothing more. That article isn't implying that UC Riverside doesn't have enough competitive applicants so it has to seek home-schooled applicants in order to increase competition. The article itself is simply summarizing UC Riverside's recent efforts to expand and appeal to a broader base of potential students. The article could be rephrased to omit the word "competitive". (There are better ways to rephrase this, but I gotta leave. More on this later.)  Teknosoul02 12:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I re-read the article, and I think the best word to use is "talented" because that's basically what the first paragraph implies. UCRGrad 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care for the phrase "more talented." This really isn't a swipe at you, UCRGrad, or a quibble about POV.  The phrase is ambigious and can have different meaning depending on how one reads it.  I know what you meant when you wrote it ("more students with talent") but I'm not sure that readers will interpet it that way as it can also be read as "students with more talent."  The first two words in the sentence also need to be removed ("in order to..." is almost always an empty phrase that can be simplified to "to...").  How about just removing the entire first half of the sentence?  I think it's clear from the article that the point is not necessarily to boost enrollment or raise the stats (test scroes, GPAs, etc.) of the entering class but simply to ensure that home-schooled students have the opporutnity to apply and be considered for admission.  I would also add a qualifier stating that this is beginning in 2005.  That would leave the sentence looking like: "Beginning in 2005, UCR has invited home-schooled and other nontraditional students to submit a portfolio of their work in addition to test scores[20]."  --ElKevbo 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have an objection to adding information about the year. However, if you read the article, the purpose is to tap into an additional pool of qualified applicants, the home-schooled, because they typically have a lot of talent and go to Ivy Leagues - I think it's important to capture this essence. UCRGrad 05:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't read the article as saying that UCR is necessarily looking to "tap into an additional pool" of applicants but that they're just looking to ensure those students get a fair shake in the admissions process. It's not about increasing enrollment but expanding access.  But I really don't mind the sentence stating that they applicants are typically well-qualified but the current phrasing is ambigious and *that* is what I object to.  I'd be happy if we could just figure out a way to juggle the words or find an alternate phrase to clear up the ambiguity.  --ElKevbo 05:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. While I think that the wording is all right as is, I would like to here some suggestions of novel phrasology for this part. You can post them right here as complete sentences and then discuss them. The most important thing is not to change the facts/meaning of the section. It looks like most of us here are college grads, so I think we should be able to do it. Insert-Belltower 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have any suggestions for rewording that still maintains the content and spirit of the referenced article? UCRGrad 19:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The 909 "Stigma"
Check the citations for the 909 stigma. The urban dictionary article is from 2003. That is 3 years old and before the area code change. Secondly why would you include anything from 909 in the article??? DO you want to provide a whole history on area codes than do it in a different section. The area code in riverside used to also be 714 but does that mean anything, NO. --HAM--

Well the section is not focus on the area code per se, but rather the stigma attached to it.Insert-Belltower 23:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad wrote: "The requirement on WP is "verifiability, not truth." So if the UCLA student can provide a reliable citation for such a statement (which probably doesn't exist), then it is immaterial that he is from UCLA. UCRGrad 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)"

Well ... here's an article claiming that the University of Southern California has a reputation for having self-centered, stuck up snobs as their primary student base. Of course, it was written by a UCLA fan.

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=26493

Should we propose that we include this on USC's wikipedia page under the student body section? I think we both would agree no b/c it's POV, and we're promoting a negative image of USC as a rich, snobby kid's school. There's more to wikipedia then verifiability. Neutrality is an equally important principle in wikipedia. So why are we including a section about the 909 stigma and its association with trailer trash, cows, and hicks. This is just perpetuating negative stereotypes of UCR (and indeed Riverside county). If you MUST keep this stigma section, then this should be reference at an article about Riverside itself, not UCR. Teknosoul02 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Although I do like referenced article about the neo-Nazi gangs. It would be nice to include it, but without having a whole section of UCR article being devoted to the 909 stigma. Maybe in a collection of references dealing with Riverside in general -- the weather, demographics, etc.


 * The source you provided does not support the assertion that "USC kids are spoiled, snotty snobs." The article merely instructs the reader to "hate the Trojans," and gives a reason that they are spoiled and snotty.  Again, if you find evidence that USC students are snobs, (i.e. a published study that measure students on a validated scale of "snottiness"), that would be admissable as a verifiable fact.  The only thing you could do with the article you provided would be to say that "The Daily Bruin has accused USC students of being 'spoiled, snotty snobs'," perhaps as part of an discussion about USC vs. UCLA rivalry.  Your example is no-parallel.  On the other hand, Riverside and the 909 is definitely associated with trailer trash, cows, and hicks - there is no question about it.  If it is true, and verifiable, I don't see how you can object to its inclusion. UCRGrad 23:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Riverside is only "definitely associated" with "trailer trash, cows and hicks" in the minds of those who view Riverside negatively. Other aspects of Riverside that could be emphasized -- new, affordable housing developments, for example -- show that your emphasis on hicks and trailer trash reflects your own negative bias. starkt 12:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're barking up the wrong tree. To answer your first question - yes, we could include the Daily Bruin article in the USC Wikipedia article if the phrase were included as a viewpoint of UCLA student and not misrepresented as a fact or otherwise misrepresented.  The primary reason for not including that viewpoint would likely be undue weight or non-noteability.
 * I also think you're misusing or misunderstanding the NPOV policy. Sources and their authors are allowed to have points of view and we're allowed (required?) to include them.  It's us, Wikipedia editors, who strive to maintain a neutral point of view by not including sources or viewpoints that are unverifiable or giving them undue weight.
 * I agree that the section, in its current form, should probably be removed from this particular article. There are no sources in the current article linking UCR with the air pollution or noting any effect it has had on the campus.  A source documenting such a link would provide a very good reason to include this section in this article but without such a source the section doesn't belong in this article. Oops.  Wrong section.  --ElKevbo 14:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about the 909 section or the air pollution section? I don't think any argument can be made to exclude the air pollution section, because we have already established that it is acceptable to talk about the campus in environment. Obviously, the campus is not protected by an invisible shield that keeps the smog out.Insert-Belltower 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, you're right - I was referring to the air pollution section in a discussion about the 909 section. My apologies.  I obviously disgaree with your assertion but this isn't the right place for that discussion.  --ElKevbo 15:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1.) UCRGrad wrote: "On the other hand, Riverside and the 909 is definitely associated with trailer trash, cows, and hicks - there is no question about it. If it is true, and verifiable, I don't see how you can object to its inclusion."


 * My argument is very much parallel. Actually, USC is VERY much associated for having its students being self-centered, snotty, and stuck up.  That stereotype is about as common as Riverside being associated with trailer trash, cows, and hicks.  But what I don't understand is that why is it okay to include this whole 909 stigma?  You mention that Riverside is known for hicks and trailer trash and that it is allegedly verifiable, but do you have any ACTUAL evidence that Riverside is full of trailer trash?  Can you find any surveys out there that asks how many residents in Riverside live in trailer parks?  The article I read that is referenced gives no hard evidence that Riverside is full of hicks and trailer trash.  This is an unfair stereotype.  If we could justify stereotyping Riverside on a page about UCR, not even about Riverside, then it would be justifiable to include the stereotype that USC kids are snooty, stuck up, and self-centered.  The article itself is arguably very POV and it appears that undue weight is given to this OC Register article, which blatantly promotes a negative image of Riverside.  The OC Weekly article is simply about a couple of brothers who brag about maintaining a website that trashes Riverside!!!!!  You may claim its true, but unless you can find an actual survey that lists how many residents of Riverside live in trailer parks, or the percentage of white supremacists in Riverside, then this 909 "stigma" section should be excised.  Teknosoul02 01:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 2.) ElKevbo: "I think you're barking up the wrong tree. To answer your first question - yes, we could include the Daily Bruin article in the USC Wikipedia article if the phrase were included as a viewpoint of UCLA student and not misrepresented as a fact or otherwise misrepresented.  The primary reason for not including that viewpoint would likely be undue weight or non-noteability."


 * ElKevbo, you've been an excellent contributor, but I will have to respectfully disagree with you. But regardless, if we will not include the Daily Bruin article about USC kids being snotty and arrogant, why are we including an article about Riverside county and its association with trailer parks on UCR's wiki page?  Aren't we giving undue weight to this article?  Also, one could argue that USC's image as a school full of stuck up snobs is about as popular as UCR's association with cows, trailer parks, white supremacists, etc. (the noteability argument).  And the 909 "stigma" is very much misrepresented here, this isn't even about UCR.  How exactly is UCR associated with the 909 "stigma"?  Should we mention on USC's wiki page that the institution is associated with the problems of South Central since USC is supposedly located by a "ghetto" section in LA?  Teknosoul02 01:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the main bone of contention here is that the surrounding area is portrayed in almost entirely negative ways with no positives presented at all. Surely it's not a complete hellhole with no redeeming qualities?  Can't someone find some good sources to document other aspects of the area?  We either need to present a balanced view or none at all.  Either option would be fine with me as I don't seem to recall many other university articles in Wikipedia having large or any sections about the local community.  --ElKevbo 12:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 3.) ElKevbo wrote: "I also think you're misusing or misunderstanding the NPOV policy. Sources and their authors are allowed to have points of view and we're allowed (required?) to include them.  It's us, Wikipedia editors, who strive to maintain a neutral point of view by not including sources or viewpoints that are unverifiable or giving them undue weight."


 * Hey, i'm not the one who was insistent in including a quote from some anonymous source on-line that called UCR an abomination to higher education! It's funny that someone is okay with an anonymous source calling his own alma mater an abomination!  (Thankfully, that quote was removed!)  If anything, perhaps UCRGrad has been misusing or misunderstanding the NPOV policy.  If you've seen what he's done to the article, you would realize it's him who's been pushing a negative POV of UC Riverside.  (On top of that, he's also been engaging in ad hominem attacks against several wiki users who are trying to work with him to make this article better!)  I also agree that it is our job to maining a neutral point of view, but by including an OC Weekly that promotes negative stereotypes of Riverside county--and making it prominent in a section about a 909 stigma--aren't we giving this article undue weight?  This article--which is nothing more than about two brothers who brag about maintaining a website that promotes contempt for Riverside--is referenced frequently and prominently in a section that is hurtful and offensive to those associated with Riverside.  I certainly respect your point of view and appreciate your response, but we're not on the same page here (even though you do acknowledge that you agree with my conclusion)!  Thank you for understanding.  Teknosoul02 01:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We're allowed to disagree - it's okay. :) --ElKevbo 12:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)