Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 13

POV Tag, Again
I'm putting the tag for the entire article back up. Although the 909 section seems to be the source of most of the contention as of the moment, there is still possible bias in the admissions, rankings, alumni, Haider, hate crime, housing, air pollution, the aforementioned 909, and athletics section, essentially the entire article. There hasn't been any resolution to previous arguments regarding the sections (aside from some editors declaring the arguments of other editors faulty and their own arguments compelling), so the tag seems to be warranted. --WHS 07:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Before anyone removes the tag, just look at the reams and reams of debate over one NPOV issue after another. That alone justifies the need for the tag. Whether "my side" is right or not is immaterial. The fact is, some editors think this article isn't neutral. Therefore, the neutrality of this article is disputed. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So far, the 909 Stigma is the only section that there is current contention for...and the arguments against it aren't even RELATED to neutrality. They're related to its relevance.  If you do not provide appropriate reasons as to why the "neutrality" of the article is disputed, you cannot put the tag up. UCRGrad 16:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't try to ignore the straw poll that was recently conducted. It's clear that several editors believe there are significant POV problems in this article and those problems have been detailed.  --ElKevbo 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The article has changed substantially since the straw poll, and the results are no longer applicable. If you continue to dispute the neutrality of this article, you're going to have to state why.  I don't have a problem with the POV tag, AS LONG AS IT IS JUSTIFIED.  UCRGrad 16:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, much of it hasn't changed substantially and many of the objections are still valid. It's been less than a month.  I'll dig out the pertinent information later.  The above discussions regarding the graduate schools' rankings (or lack thereof) and the 909 "stigma" are evidence enough for now.  --ElKevbo 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't work that way. You can't put up a POV tag and say "I'll justify it LATER."  Either show evidence of a CURRENT dispute of the neutrality of the ENTIRE article (not one section) or wait until you have time to provide such evidence.  Tags are not meant to be put up for trivial reasons. UCRGrad 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is sufficient evidence in the discussions right above this section. Stop violating WP:OWN.  --ElKevbo 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * WHAT evidence!? The only concern people have CURRENTLY is regarding the inclusion/exclusion of the TRUE 909 Stigma of the Inland Empire.  Including a paragraph containing true and cited facts hardly constitutes a non-neutral point of view. UCRGrad 19:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The evidence is in the article. Just about every negative thing anyone could say about the school -- whether warranted or not (not, in the case of the StudentReview.com "study") -- is in the article, without positive or qualifying information. The article thus blatantly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. starkt 14:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, UCRG, in the mountains of talk archives (I've just helpfully created Archive 11), we've argued these issues to death. And you, along with I-B, simply refuse to accept that there are other valid viewpoints besides yours. Really, what is an "appropriate reason" for tagging this article? I see, it's only appropriate if you say it is. I don't buy that line, and I doubt anyone else here does either. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 05:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Szyslak. starkt 14:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence from the straw poll which currently applies despite "substantial" changes:
 * "The information and statistics are fine, but some parts of this article are questionable, such as " Indeed, a large proportion of incoming freshmen arrive with inadequate preparation..."
 * Still in the article, so there is still a dispute.


 * "Most universities don't have a graduate school mentioned in the U.S. News..."
 * Still in the article, so there is still a dispute.


 * Regarding Nobel Laureates, "As discussed several months ago, this is a non-fact whose relevance to this or any other university article has not been established."
 * Still in the article, so there is still a dispute.


 * "Not only is this section biased, it's poorly written and misleading. The very first sentence implies that an 85% freshmen..."
 * Still in the article, so there is still a dispute.


 * "The quote should go. Quotes from public review sites, like StudentsReview..."
 * Still in the article, so there is still a dispute.

I could go on and on, but I'm guessing the point has been made. Also, UCRGrad, it's absolutely clear that the dispute still exists even though current discussion is focused on the 909 section. It's impossible to tackle every aspect of the article at once as there are so many sections that people contend, so therefore saying that there must "CURRENTLY" be discussion of said subjects to justify the POV tag is not only ridiculous, but also unfeasable. -- WHS  Talk 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When UCRG demands removal of the POV tag, he claims those who oppose his preferred version haven't "justified" the tag or "given reasons for it". When we do, he says our justification isn't good enough. IIRC a while back he actually argued for tagging the article any time it wasn't at his preferred version. To tag the article for POV, there needs to be only one editor disputing its NPOV status. I can't speak for everyone, but I for one dispute its neutrality. This article is a slam piece on a thoroughly decent school. It cherry-picks negative "facts" and complete nonsense. Yes, there has been some progress, but not nearly enough. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 05:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Szyslak. starkt 14:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

On the history section of the UCR article, UCRGrad wrote:

"19:12, 11 August 2006 UCRGrad (Talk | contribs) (POV once again removed, as there is no current dispute regarding neutrality. Furthermore, who on earth keeps removing the Wash monthly stuff? I personally don't care if it's there or not.)"

So UCRGrad doesn't mind if we happen to remove the Washington Monthly rankings rating, but he's adamant on keeping an article that promotes a negative image of UCR (the 909 Stigma) which doesn't even relate to UCR! Wonder why? Is it b/c Washington Monthly ranks UCR #22, hence actually presenting UCR in a good light for a change and doesn't make UCR look bad? That's rich. Teknosoul02 21:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good reasoning there, Teknosoul02. In reality, Washington Monthly is an obscure, virtually unknown, publication that ranks schools not based on the education or opportunities they provide, but based on how the schools use federal funds and school the underserved.  I'm sorry, but this methodology essentially produces a "useless" ranking.  There's a reason why US News is on every newstand and on every academician's desk, whereas Washington Monthly is likely to engender confused looks.  Ordinarily, I would push to have useless information like WM's junk rankings removed, but I figure I should compromise and not oppose its inclusion since it's at least a verifiable fact.  If anything, I'm consistent. UCRGrad 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're going to talk about people's reasoning ability, I recommend that you develop some of your own. Washington Monthly is not an "obscure, virtually unknown" publication, it is a respected national journal of conservative political commentary. [Starkt]


 * No, it's obscure and virtually unknown. Just becuase you've heard of it, doesn't mean that eveyrone else has. UCRGrad 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Invalid straw-man argument. Not everyone has to have heard of it for it to be well-known. starkt 09:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And, contrary to what you claim, it does rank schools based on the education and opportunities they provide. For example, under "social mobility", it ranks schools based on the number of Pell Grant recipients who are enrolled and make it to graduation. It criticizes Emory University (highly ranked by USN&WR) for going after wealthy kids instead of poor Pell Grant recipients in order to boost the average SAT score of its freshman class. So, yes, it does rank schools on the opportunities they provide. [Starkt]


 * Using the percentage of "poor kids" enrolled at your school hardly translates to "opportunities" available to students. I stand behind my comments.  UCRGrad 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So you think enhancing social mobility involves not enrolling poor kids? I see. Standing behind your comments does nothing to make them valid. starkt 09:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As for ranking them on the education they provide, it notes the percentage of undergraduates who go on to earn Ph.D.s -- a measure of quality not provided by USN&WR. [Starkt]

The % of undergraduste who obtain Ph.D.'s is nice to know, but it hardly translates into a marker of the quality of education provided. For instance, if 100% of your students become physicians and attorneys, your Ph.D. rate is a whopping 0%. UCRGrad 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another invalid straw-man argument. What school has 100% of its graduating class go on to become physicians and attorneys? Not any school that I've ever heard of. And I'm sure I would have heard about it. It would be hard to avoid the huge headlines that would occur if something like that happened. Only someone trying to promote his own bias would deny that a large percentage of undergraduate students going on to earn Ph.D.s strongly indicates that the school graduating those students is providing an excellent education. Of course, there are other possible explanations (The school is lousy, but lots of geniuses go there. Or your example: 100% of the school's graduates get into law school and medical school). Those possibilities are improbable (why would geniuses go to a lousy school? They wouldn't. No school has 100% of its graduates accepted to law school and medical school. Nor do 100% of graduating students at a given school choose to apply to law school or medical school). starkt 09:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your saying that Washington Monthly's ranking is "useless" demonstrates your arrogance and ignorance, nothing more. US News on every academicians desk? Oh, sure thing. U.S. News's rankings have been a laughingstock among serious academics for as long as those rankings have existed. It is only the admissions folk who take them seriously -- and then, only because prospective students them seriously. Students also used to take the word "groovy" seriously. starkt 10:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Washington Monthly's rankings are essentially useless because the criteria they use for determine numerical rank are trivial and unimportant. Why not just rank schools based on the average shoe size of their students?  Same thing.  US News uses important criteria, and their methodology is rigorous and respected - far more so than any other publication that produces college rankings. UCRGrad 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have no basis for criticizing Washington Monthly's methodology. Making accusations is easy. Having evidence for them is something else. Washington Monthly's criteria are, if anything, superior to USN&WR's for assessing the quality of schools. Percentage of graduates going on to earn a Ph.D., for example. That measures actual results. starkt 09:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad, I have to strongly disagree with you here. While I understand your adamant support for US News (not sure why, seeing that it doesn't exact give your alma mater high marks), US News reports doesn't necessarily measure the educational quality or opportunities of a university.  Instead, the US News rankings focuses on these: 1.) the admissions standards of a college, that is how selective is the college 2.) financial resources (how much money do alumni give back) and 3.) reputation of a college.  While I agree that all those factors are important, they do not necessarily measure the educational quality of a college.  A great university can have fantastic resources and facilities, superb faculty and research opportunities, and plenty of support.  However, its ranking in the US News report is hurt simply b/c 1.) it doesn't have high admissions standards b/c the school is for whatever reason doesn't attract those with super high GPAs or SAT scores and 2.) it doesn't have a strong reputation, that is, the school lacks brand name for whatever reason.  If anything, the US News rankings focuses more on the superficial qualities of educational institutions (like whether the school has a popular brand name among prospective high school students or whether the school has high admissions standards).


 * Washington Monthly on the other hand focuses more on the intangibles. It focuses on how well a college prepares students for the workplace.  It also focuses on the school's contributions to society, whether through its student workforce or research.  It also focuses on whether the school is giving everybody a fair shake at getting a great education (that is, it's trying to give those an opportunity to attend college who might not otherwise be able to due to financial concerns).  So in these regards, Washington Monthly focuses on what a university is doing to push for educational quality and unlike the prestigious schools, doesn't rest on its laurels and relies on its "brand name" to impress people.  I'm not necessarily advocating for Washington Monthly b/c frankly, this and US News focus on different aspects of a university, but while Washington Monthly's rankings are not yet as well known as US News, I think it's a great alternative for those who want to go beyond looking at the reputation and brand name of a college, and see what a college can do for the individual. Teknosoul02 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no comment on the reputation of Washington Monthly except to state that anyone who *does* express an opinion about it (in the article - you're free to bandy about reasonable opinion and discussion here on the Talk page!) should be prepared to back up that opinion with references.
 * As to UCRGrad's comment that "there's a reason why US News is on every newstand and on every academician's desk" - First, I think we can all agree that your statement is hyperbole and attacking on those grounds would be silly. I get what you're saying.  USN&WR has built itself quite a following with its rankings.  The reason why many in the academy are knowledgeable of the rankings is not because they are seen as valid or even noteworthy - they are important to parents, students, and many others outside of the academy (including lawmakers) and thus it is in our own best interests to know about these rankings.  But they're definitely not seen as valid or even useful by most scholars and academicians.  I'd be happy to continue this discussion elsewhere as it's starting to get pretty far off-topic.  --ElKevbo 21:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You also keep stating that USN&WR's rankings are widely respecting even among academicians. They're not widely respected among academicians.  There are flaws in their methodology.  Although they're a few years old, many of the criticisms collected by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Education & Social Science Library still hold true as they are critcisms of the fundamental fallacy of attempting to rank organizations as complex and heterogenous as American colleges and universities.  --ElKevbo 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with ElKevbo. starkt 09:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't support UCRG's contention that the USN&WR rankings are widely respected in the academy. However, I do support their inclusion in the article, up to a point, and I'm sure you do too. Of course their methodology's flawed. Of course the concept of ranking something as complex as a university is flawed. But for better or worse, people do rely on USN&WR, along with Princeton Review, as a none-too-specific gauge of how a school ranks among its contemporaries. I'm kind of glad UCRG thinks of USN&WR so highly: It lists UCR as one of the 100 best "national" universities in the country, keeping in mind that there are many thousands of colleges and universities in the United States. I think that's pretty high praise. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 23:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Szyzlak, although I'd prefer that we use more in-depth college guides (Fiske, the one Yale used to produce if it still exists, anything by the College Board.) Journalists are not qualified to rate universities (although there is no doubt that such august publications as The National Review and The Washington Monthly deserve to be taken more seriously than USN&WR). Journalists are less interested in accuracy than in selling newspapers and magazines (sensationalism.) Princeton Review and Kaplan started out as test-score-boosting outfits. They do have some interesting things to say about beating the system, and they are interested in getting the "dirt" (gossip) about schools, but they are not qualified to judge universities as a whole. starkt 09:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

USN&WR ranking
The article states that UCR has the lowest overall score and peer assessment score of the UC institutions. I'm not seeing it in the cited source. I'm sure it's there but I'm just missing it. Can someone please explicitly point out where those scores are actually listed? Or is these some of the "gotta pay to see 'em" data points? --ElKevbo 21:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You gotta pay to see the peer assessment score of all colleges. I am pretty sure that statistically speaking (at least according to US News and World Report), UCR does have the lowest peer assessment score of the UC institutions (though it is still decent--it's at least around a 3.0 on a 5.0 scale).  I do not dispute that statistic (even though I still question the overall ranking methodology of US News and think that the rankings themselves are borderline fraudulent).  But that's another rant. Teknosoul02 21:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute the statistic either - someone has to be at the bottom, right? I'm just curious and trying to find the actual values.  I work in an academic library but either I can't find our printed copy or someone swiped it.  I've found several other university rankings but not the one for which I'm looking... :(  --ElKevbo 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are the rankings for the Tier 2 Universities:
 * http://www.geocities.com/alcompti/uni51.jpg


 * UCR's peer assessment score is 3.1 (out of 5.0). Not bad, but definitely the lowest of the UC schools.  UC Santa Cruz is the second lowest at 3.2 (out of 5.0).  Interestingly enough, UCR's peer assessment score is only marginally worst than my alma mater's (Rutgers, with a peer assessment score of 3.3).  UCR also has the same graduation rate as my alma mater (71%).  So c'mon, UCR really can't be THAT bad of an institution.  Of course, it helps that Rutgers is the top state school in New Jersey and in the East Coast, the only major state school competition are UNC-Chapel Hill and University of Virginia (though we do have to compete with Michigan grads at times too).  :) Teknosoul02 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ElKevbo works in an academic library and he can't even find a recent issue of a widely available magazine like US News!!?? Quite frankly, I'm dumbfounded.  Furthermore, I think it's nice that you compare UC Riverside to Rutgers.  Rutgers is a virtually unknown school to people living in California, and probably has a similar reputation to UCR - this is consistent with the similar peer assessment score.UCRGrad 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Virtually unknown? Then why have I known about Rutgers? And lived in California the whole time? starkt 10:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: crossing out people's contributions is vandalism. UCRGrad 03:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, because *everything* that is in the catalog is in the stacks where the catalog says it is, right? Especially popular, often used items?  It's obvious that *you* have never worked in a library... :)  --ElKevbo 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I have never worked in a library - even UCR gave me better opportunities than that after I graduated. However, I have been to many libraries, and I have yet to find one that doesn't carry an issue of US News less than 1 year old. UCRGrad 21:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're going to continue slinging personal attacks, at least have the courtesy to do it on my Talk page. This Talk page is already busy enough.  --ElKevbo 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Alumni giving rates: public v. private
I don't necessarily agree with the way this paragraph is phrased:

"Like other public universities, UCR has a low alumni giving rate.[24] UCR has an alumni giving rate of 5%, the lowest of any institution in US News & World Report's "National University" category. In comparison, UCLA's alumni giving rate stands at 16%, UC Berkeley's at 15%, UC Davis at 10%, and UC Irvine at 9%. [22][24]"

I wanted to emphasize that public universities across the nation DO have rather low alumni giving rates. With so much negativity about UC Riverside, I think that for once, let's try to give UCR's lowest alumni giving rate some context. This article constantly focuses on how UCR statistically sucks compared to other UC's and how UCR is dead last in so-and-so category compared to other UC's. I think that for once, let's make it clear that while admittedly, UCR has the lowest alumni giving rate of all the "National Universities" according to US News rankings, the other UC's don't have that much higher alumni giving rates. Let's face it, a 15% alumni giving rate ISN'T anything to celebrate. But it also doesn't diminish the quality of academic excellence that Berkeley has come to symbolize. The UCI article, while not perfect, at least lets people know that low alumni giving rates are an epidemic all over the nation. I think it's fair to present this argument to make this article more neutral and let readers understand that low alumni giving rates is a problem(?) in state schools. Teknosoul02


 * I agree with Teknosoul02. starkt 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think is a matter of opinion as to whether " UCR statistically sucks compared to other UC's."


 * If UCR ranks lowest in all the given areas, then it is not just a matter of opinion. It's a fact. However, it is a selective fact, one that ignores the ways in which UCR might be better than other UC schools. starkt 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Rankings are not opinions, they are facts.  The argument above is to "sugar-coat" this particular negative fact by giving it context, with the justification that we've already provided so many other negative facts.  That, in an of itself, is creating POSITIVE BIAS, and is not acceptable.  I do not have a huge objection to mentioning 1-2 other UC's, but after that, it becomes cumbersome.  We cannot list comparative statistics for every single statistics in the article (unless they can be grouped together, like "all UC's"), as it would compromise flow and readibility.  UCRGrad 15:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Putting something in context is not "sugar-coating" it. It is simply putting it in context. It is your desire to leave the context out that constitutes POV -- in this case, negative POV. starkt 10:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As for giving a context to the alumi giving, there is already one with the mention a couple of the other UC's. I don't think there is any reason to sugar coat the data to introduce positive POV in the article.Insert-Belltower 02:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nor is there any reason to introduce negative POV by highlighting an area in which all public universities do poorly, and many private ones do not do much better. starkt 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how putting statistics in context is sugar coating anything. One of the largest problems with this article is that too many numbers are being thrown around without any explanation and worded in a way to make them appear worse than they are (i.e. the remedial math and English, retention rate, alumni giving rate). Oh, and it's funny. If even the slightest hint of positive bias is introduced then it's an absolute travesty, but the negative bias the article is currently riddled with is perfectly fine. -- WHS Talk 06:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with putting statistics in context, but it must be accurately explain the numbers and not attempt to soften them.Insert-Belltower 14:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet, you remove contextual information, such as the fact that most public universities have low alumni contribution rates because people perceive public universities as being supported by tax dollars. Such information does not "soften" the numbers, it explains them. starkt 15:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually think that if any explanatory text is provided, it should at least elaborate on what the statistic signifies (like alumni giving rate = the percent of alumni who donate back to their alma mater), which I think we do a good job of doing. Secondarily, if it is meaningful and informative to compare to other UC campuses, that's also fine...but to do so for the sole purpose of sugar-coating a bad number...not acceptable for obvious reasons. UCRGrad 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You on the other hand have consistently spun things in a negative direction. Pointing out that UCR has no Nobel Laureates (very few schools do have them), pointing out its low alumni contribution rate (few public universities have high contribution rates), using a StudentReview.com survey that is self-selected, small, and made up of people who might not even have attended UCR as a reliable source. When people try to have this negative information removed as irrelevant, or placed in its true context, you and Insert-Belltower resist at every turn. You are hardly in a position to accuse anyone of sugarcoating when in fact people are trying to get rid of the blatant POV you have introduced into the article. starkt 15:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I never intended to sugar coat anything. I wanted to give the statistics some sense of context.  I also have to second WHS in my observations here.  Seems you'd rather have this UCR article riddled with negative biases--under the pretenses of "telling the truth".  But anytime anyone else tries to give the "negative" facts a sense of context (and that includes mitigating the negative facts so that readers get an understanding of what is going on), you accuse us of introducing positive bias.  Keep in mind that per WP:policy, we should strive for balance.  If we includes negative facts, we should at least give some context ... even if it means mitigating these negative facts.  We are not hiding the negative facts here, but we also do not want to exaggerate the school's worst characteristics b/c this could give readers the wrong impression that the school is much worse that it really is.  Teknosoul02 12:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is, of course, based on the false pretense that the article has a negative bias and that you are trying to make it neutral. In reality, the article lists the facts straight-up and objectively - there is no sugar coating of positive facts to make them more negative, and there should NOT be sugar coating of negative facts to ameliorate them.  Balance does not imply that negative facts be paired with a positive fact.  The negative facts are what they are, and in important areas, UCR has a disproportionate quantity of them.  That's just the way it is. UCRGrad 15:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the word you want is "premise", not "pretense". The article does not list the facts straight-up and objectively. It lists a carefully selected group of facts, mostly negative. And it omits -- at your insistence -- any qualifying or contextual information that would give a fair and balanced view of UCR. starkt 10:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Teknosoul02, above. starkt 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute the fact but I think the UCI article is a poor source. I've found a much better source for this information, though: The Council for Aid to Education (CAE) Voluntary Support of Education Survey.  I've requested an account for their data mining tool.  A summary of the 2005 findings states that: "These findings are from the annual Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) survey, which has tracked giving to higher education and private K-12 schools for more than 50 years. The 1,005 institutions that participated in the 2005 survey represent nearly two-thirds of the nation’s four-year institutions, including 90 percent of research and doctoral institutions. Respondents generally account for about 85 percent of the voluntary support raised by all colleges and universities."
 * As this appears to be one of the most definitive sources for this data, I recommend holding off until I (or someone else - it appears to be free for higher ed students, staff, and faculty to request access) can get access to the 2005 data and cite it as the source. Their appears to be at least one reference (a listserv posting so it's definitely not something we could reference in the article) that states that the 2004 data from this survey indicate that of those undergraduate degree-bearing alumni solicited for funds the average percentage that gave were 16% and 27% for public and private institution, respectively.  --ElKevbo 22:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Who's using the UCI article? We're getting alumni giving rates from US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT.  UCRGrad 15:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the article again. --ElKevbo 16:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Diversity and Hate Crimes
The very title of this section seems quite biased. In looking at pages on other UC schools, there seems to be no reporting in regards to the surrounding areas. The UC population tends to have a much lower crime rate as a whole than most areas surrounding those UCs.

Also, this article does not reflect points of view that speak to the acceptance of minority groups at UC Riverside, such at the LGBT community. UCR was featured in “The Advocate College Guide for LGBT Students” as one of 100 schools profiled for acceptance of the LGBT community.

I realize I'm pretty new here, but I was hoping this could also be dicussed. FrostedTheFlake 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. starkt 10:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be okay with putting in the LGBT data. We have previously discussed the diversity section. Let us know what questions you have about it. Insert-Belltower 17:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have information regarding LGBT community acceptance from a reputable, verifiable source, please include it in the article. With regard to your feeling of "bias," there is none.  Please do not confuse conveyance of negative information with "bias," because they are not the same entity.  The article does not convey statistics on crime in general, as you say, but on hate crime, specifically - of which the school and the surrounding area have serious problems with. UCRGrad 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pssst. "...of which the school and the surrounding area have serious problems with" is grammatically incorrect. starkt 10:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And I would just ignore this Danny guy, he probably hasn't checked his GFR today.Insert-Belltower 14:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good luck, you're up against quite the rhetoric master. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest creating a new sub-section titled "Campus/Student Security," and moving hate crime and other related information there. --Amerique 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with this sentence: "The communities surrounding UC Riverside that make up the so-called Inland Empire have had frequent incidents of racial violence. 148 hate crimes were reported in the Inland Empire (population over 1 million) in 2004 (one every 2-3 days), with 5 occurring on the UCR campus[40][41]" Specifically, the reported 148 hate crimes in the Inland Empire, which has a population of 3.8 million, is less overall California hate-crime rate: 1,691 for 2005 in a population of 34 million. (Visibly, the Inland Empire has more than a tenth of California's population and less than a tenth of the hate crimes.) So why is this something to feature when discussing UCR? -- Anonymous 8:30, 20 August 2006 (PDT)

Similarly, I have a problem with: "The most recent and notorious hate crime was the murder of a man outside a gay bar in downtown Riverside[43]." That incident was several years ago, so it's not the most recent. It occurred miles from Campus. And, so far as I know, it didn't involve UCR students. -- Anonymous 8:35, 20 August 2006 (PDT)

Editing vs. Reverting
I've done a lot of edits, mostly for style, grammar, spelling, tense agreements, clarity, singular-plural agreements, brevity, conventional usage and so on.

I will not accept wholesale reverts of these edits. If you revert, I will revert in turn.

As a courtesy, you should edit, not revert, unless what you are reverting is obvious vandalism.

I will no longer accept blatant POV in this article.

Nor, as an alumnus of UC, will I tolerate sub-literate writing and editing. starkt 14:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but it's really not up to you only what are the rules for editing the article.Insert-Belltower 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have been warned. I will revert any reverts you or others make. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not accept accusations that there is a blatnat POV, especially in the absence of sufficient evidence that supports this.


 * The evidence is overwhelming. What you "accept" is of no interest to me. It is what Wikipedia accepts that matters. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nitpicking on style/grammar/spelling and arguing against inclusion of 1-2 sections is a far cry from "blatant POV." Let me remind you that WP policy instructs youto assume good faith.


 * It is hardly nitpicking to make editorial changes to an article that appears mostly to have been written by someone who has read very little, and who writes sloppily and ungrammatically as a matter of course. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the vast majority of the grammar errors you corrected were not originally made by me. Furthermore, the majority of text was submitted by Amerique, not me.  Finally, thus far, I have not been very impressed by the caliber of your writing - so don't pat yourself on the back just yet. UCRGrad 02:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My writing and thinking are self-evidently superior to yours. Like so many ignorant people, you cannot recognize quality because you live in a self-created world of error. Thus, what you are impressed or not impressed by is of no interest to anyone. Oh, and the correct usage is not "grammar errors" by "grammatical errors". Just thought you'd like to know. starkt 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That being said, you cannot go to ANY well-established article and make such sweeping changes and NOT expect your modifications to be revereted instantenously.


 * Yes, I can, and I have. Quite often. Literate people of good will have accepted my editorial changes -- often sweeping -- without objection. They understand that Wiki's policy is that ANYONE can write and make edits, not just Insert-Belltower and UCRGrad. You don't "own" this article. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't believe it, try it on another such article.


 * I have, with no problems. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you made a lot of excellent changes in wording here and there


 * Thank you. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

with a few that don't quite work connotatively (for examples, medical students don't "serve" a clerkship)


 * What do they do then -- study a clerkship? learn a clerkship? I'd be interested to know. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, if you don't know how to use a word in a sentence, then maybe you shouldn't try. It's called "overextending your knowledge base."  UCRGrad 02:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice you don't answer my question, so I'm going to change it back. It seems you've overextended your "knowledge base", so you're hardly in a position to criticize others on this point. Continue down this road, and I'll revert back to my original set of changes. starkt 09:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, you made some factual changes that are incorrect, such as stating that the freshmen retention rate of 85% was the highest in the UC System - it's actually the lowest.


 * Not according to the article. I was merely restating what was already stated. Look at what was written before. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If you just want to make grammar/spelling/style changes, please feel free to do so. However, if you're going to make sweeping modifications that you already know that I-B and I will not agree with, it goes without saying that there will be a reversion. UCRGrad 14:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And then I'll revert back. That goes without saying as well. But you will notice that I have carefully preserved most of your and Insert-Belltower's bias. I am not interested at this point in removing all the POV from the article. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well let us know when you plan to introduce your positive POV in the article in order to create a lofty image of the school.Insert-Belltower 16:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I do that, it will be no worse than your transparent attempts to introduce POV by slamming the school. starkt 09:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No matter your personal feelings, please be advised that you are still required to follow WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thanks. UCRGrad 12:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would advise you to follow those rules before advising others to follow them. starkt 08:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether or not you believe I am following WP rules and policy, you are obliged to follow them regardless. UCRGrad 15:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sugar-Coating" vs. Context
I think it is important for statistics and numberical figures to have a context in an encyclopedic article, which helps to explain their significance and meaning. However, I strongly object to adding facts that go to extraordinary leaps to assuage negative information. One such example was a set a changes by Tecknosoul02:

"However, the University of California system is usually regarded to be one of the most prestigious state school systems in the nation so UC schools are generally held to a higher standard that most public school systems. Despite [UCR] being ranked last in the aforementioned categories out of the UC schools, UC Riverside has still held its own against other flagship state universities including those in Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Oregon, Louisiana, and West Virginia."

Why is it relevant to suddenly compare UCR to "flagship campuses" in other states? The comparison is completely arbitrary and appears to be an attempt to blunt the impact of the negative information presented. Why were these schools selected? I would like to know the answer to the following question: how does including this information provide a context for the data; how does it better explain the data, other than to introduce unnecessary emphasis? Insert-Belltower 21:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey listen, you DO NOT HAVE unilateral authority over this article. Everybody has the right to edit this article to make it more fair and balanced.  It seems that whenever I attempt to make this article more fair, you accuse me (and every other editor) of "positive bias".  Then again, this coming from the person who seemingly thinks its okay to label his own alma mater an "abomination to higher education".  Calling your own alma mater an abomination to higher education is like saying its okay that you daughter gets raped b/c she dresses provactively.


 * The context I have provided is necessary; to show that the schools in the UC system are generally held to a higher standard that most state schools and that in the greater scheme of things, UC Riverside is still a decent school. Teknosoul02 02:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, gotta agree with IB on this one. I don't think it's quite appropriate to compate UCR with flagship institution from most other states.  I don't think it's necessarily that UCR can't or shouldn't be compared to them but that they are likely too different from one another to make for a good comparison.  Does anyone have or know of a listing of the institutions that UCR considers its own peers?  --ElKevbo 12:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Teknosoul02. Saying that UCR is the worst of the UC schools on various measures of quality is like saying the University of Pennsylvania is the worst of the Ivies. Maybe it is, but it's still an Ivy -- and an excellent school. People unfamiliar with the University of California as a whole will not understand UCR's low ranking in relation to other UCs unless it is pointed out that even the lowest ranking UC school is comparable in quality to many flagship state universities around the country. The U.S. News rankings and other rankings should back this up. The funny thing behind all this bickering, though, is that all you really have to do is say that UCR ranks 85th (or whatever) among national universities in the USN&WR survey, and 22nd in the Washington Monthly survey, and people can pretty much figure out for themselves that it is not as highly ranked as the other UCs (by looking at their rankings in those surveys -- duh.) So, no need to whine about UCR being the "worst" UC. Unless, of course, you have it in for UCR and want to besmirch its reputation. starkt 09:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think an explanatory context is "necessary" at all. I think that when a meaning of a term associated with statistics is not obvious to most people, it should be explained. For instance, what does US News' peer assessment score refer to? That needs to be explained. But do we need to list the peer assessment scores of every other UC school? No. That's silly. UCRGrad 01:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an idea: Let's compare the peer assessment score to USN&WR's average, in addition to or instead of other UCs. That'll give an impression of how UCR ranks in that regard among national universities in general. Sure, it doesn't rank too highly in the august company of other UCs, but how does it fare in the greater scheme of things? szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 12:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

For the records, REFERENECES WERE INCLUDED in my most recent update of my article. PLEASE READ carefully instead of reverting back to the old POV version of UCR. Next time, try not to let blind hatred of your alma mater cloud your judgment. Teknosoul02 02:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

... is a false dichotomy
In and of themselves, adding a "positive" fact is not sugar-coating, and adding a negative fact isn't always bad-mouthing UCR. Let's not lose sight of what's important in the long run: ensuring this article is neutral, verifiable and free of original research. szyslak (t, c,  e ) 12:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait. I didn't say that adding "positive" fact was sugar-coating. Sugar-coating is adding unnecessary positive context to negative statistics.Insert-Belltower 13:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncivil Comments by Teknosoul02
In light of recent accusations I and I-B have been uncivil, I think it's important to note that opposing editors have made far worse comments than we have. Teknosoul02 attempted to delete these comments he made after I reported him to admins, but I think it's important that they remain such that we can fairly evaluate offenses made by all sides. Here they are:

Teknosoul02 wrote: Lisren dips*it, you don't know what you're talking about. DON'T YOU EVER INSULT MY ALMA MATER. THIS HAS GONE TOO FAR, A$$HOLE. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO INSULT RUTGERS, ONE OF THE FINEST INSTITUTIONS IN THE NATION. Considering Rutgers is virtually one of the top public schools in the ENTIRE EAST COAST (outside of UNC-Chapel Hill and UVa, and UNC tends to be attract more applicants from the south than the east), you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about insulting Rutgers.

Teknosoul02 wrote: Further, I still maintain that UC Riverside is a better school than what you make it out to be. Yes, I know that it has its problems, but the context I have used is justified. -    Teknosoul02 wrote: and I have news for you UCRGrad, most of the UC schools (excluding Berkeley) are virtually unknown to the people in the East Coast. And in the East, the University of southern California goes under major derogatory names including "University of Second Class," "University of Second Choice," "University of South Central", etc. (I have absolutely no intentions of insulting the UC schools or USC, I know they are fine institutions but UCRGrad is being a pr*ck for insulting Rutgers.)

Teknosoul02 wrote: And i don't give a s*it if you think Rutgers sucks b/c it's ranking is "low" in the US News Rankings. The US News Rankings are FRAUDULENT. There, I said it. Only superficial people actually give a damn about those stupid rankings. Unlike them, I know there's more to life and getting a good education than abiding by those stupid US News and Fraud Rankings. If you live and die by these rankings, you have serious issues. UCRGrad 03:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I said the above things out of complete anger and emotion. Maybe you should be a little more receptive the next time you interact with other editors.  Maybe you should also spend more time working with others to make the article NPOV instead of making swipes at my alma mater.  Teknosoul02 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also made an effort to delete all the offensive remarks I made and I would prefer that we perhaps move on for this. I think I'm being very fair for asking you to apologize for making swipes towards my alma mater.  After all, I apologized for my temper.  Teknosoul02 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, you made unwarranted and unjustified offense remarks with copious profanity and obscene words. This is indisputable.  I think that it would be gracious of you to offer an unconditional apology, but to attempt to lie and blame ME for instigating all of this, is preposterous.  I stand behind the truthful statement I made about Rutger's reputation in California.  Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to type the words "sh*t" and "f*ck." UCRGrad 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you'll survive, UCR Grad (grabs wrist and checks pulse). Unless you've been living in a hermetically sealed bubble for the last 25 years. Let's see, you're the one who is telling everyone that Riverside County is full of gangs, trailer trash, etc., and that you spent four years there But you can't handle a few four letter words? I think your demands for "civility" are just a ploy to try and get people in trouble after you've done everything you can to provoke them. starkt 09:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad, I'm not defending what Teknosoul wrote because they were clearly uncivil, but he did attempt to remove his comments from this page after they had only been up for less than an hour. In anycase, this wasn't the appropriate place to post this as it has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Next time when you have personal issues with another user, take it to your own user talk pages and not the article talk page. As stated on WP:TPG:
 * "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages."
 * What you've posted has nothing at all to do with the article in question, so again, that's what user talk pages are for. Also, regarding your constant use of bolded text, also from WP:TPG
 * "Avoid markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force through Italic text, Bolded text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!!"
 * I hope that in the future you'll be more inclined to follow official Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. -- WHS Talk 03:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you decide to pull up WP policy on markup guidelines, rather than the strict policies on using profanity and personal attacks. UCRGrad 03:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't need to pull up WP policy on personal attacks. It was obvious that both of you committed them. Also, I mentioned in my statement that Teknosoul's comments were uncivil. Still, other editors using profanity doesn't give you the right to start breaking policy either. -- WHS Talk 04:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? And what personal attack did I make? If you think I made one, feel free to copy it here.  When you realize that I didn't, then I will await your apology. UCRGrad 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You were clearly baiting him by making disparaging remarks about his alma mater, which incidentally was both OR and likely untrue. Regarding your request for an apology, I'll give you one when you give me one for saying "really don't have any affiliation or knowledge whatsoever about UC Riverside". Anyway, as I've already mentioned, this really doesn't belong on the talk page of the article. -- WHS Talk 04:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And you made an unwarranted and unjustified remark about Rutgers. I could turn it around and make the same argument that no one made you say those remarks about Rutgers' "unknown" reputation in California.  And quite frankly, you're lying by claiming that you aren't instigating this rather ugly argument.  You know very well I went to Rutgers.  You know very well that I was (admittedly) attempted to show that UCR isn't as bad as perceived and though my comparison of UCR to Rutgers wasn't the best analogy, my whole point is that both are still very decent universities.  Not perfect, but UCR in this case still offers a good education and I attempted, throughout my edits of the UCR article, to show that the school has its merits (despite being the lowest ranked school in California).  Even if you truly believe what you say about Rutgers, you were not at all sensitive nor respectful of how others might take your opinion.  I sincerely apologize for subjecting you to all my profane remarks, but you know very well that you did instigate them.  You can argue all you want that I didn't have to use such language, but you know deep down that you were the one that fired the first shot.  I merely fired back.  Teknosoul02 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've known about Rutgers and its excellent reputation for a long time. The sociological journal "Transaction" is headquartered at Rutgers. starkt 09:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is true that Rutgers (like most lower-ranked east coast schools) is not well-known in California. I'm sorry you are offended by this statement, but it's true and no amount of profanity/obscenity is going to change that.  Secondly, I'm quite appalled that you do not realize that nobody forced you to respond in such an uncivil fashion.  When you read Rutgers' ranking in US News, did you send them a profane letter as well?  UCRGrad 03:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There you go again UCRGrad, nice job taking swipes at Rutgers. A school ranked in the 60s hardly constitutes a "low ranking".  Especially considering that there are some 248 universities that are ranked as "National Universities" per US News.


 * Why are you doing this (you know you're taking swipes at me, but you refuse to admit it)? Could you please just stop this!!!  This is really nauseating; it's like you enjoy doing this and that you're proud of putting others down b/c they went to a "lower-ranked" college (a school in the mid to high 60s hardly constitutes a "lower-ranked", especially when there are a considerable amount of national universities ranked lower than Rutgers.  And they can all offer a fine education even if their rankings aren't the most impressive.  And Rutgers IS ranked higher than UCR, but doesn't that mean that Rutgers is necessarily superior to UCR b/c UCR may have advantages Rutgers doesn't.  Likewise, a higher ranking in the US News rarely correlates to monetary and personal success.

What is your problem? Did going to UCR really affect your mindset? (not a personal attack, this is a legitimate question). Teknosoul02 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would add that there are some 3,000 colleges and universities in the U.S., so ranking 60th seems pretty darn good. Rutgers is like Tufts and Brandeis, excellent schools that are overshadowed by nearby "name" universities. Interestingly enough, if you concentrate on the only objective (and existing) measure of quality that I accept -- percentage of undergraduates who go on to earn Ph.D.s -- Tufts and Brandeis move near the top of the list (Washington Monthly rankings), and I'm sure Rutgers turns in a good performance as well. starkt 09:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you this: Do you agree or disagree with the statement that Rutgers University is not well-known in California? Furthermore, do you agree or disagree with the statement that Rutgers has a similar peer assessment score to UCR according to US News?? UCRGrad 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see my response on your user discussion page. Teknosoul02 14:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Any further comment from either of you to the other in the next 24 hours will be met with a 24 hour time out. As I said on one of your talk pages, it's not up to me to allocate blame. But it has to stop. If you keep going, you will not only receive whatever blocks are necessary to stop you in the short-term; you'll ultimately face Arb.Com. I suggest that over the next 24 hours you both contribute elsewhere, avoid each other, and try to work out how you can be cooperative with each other in the future. Metamagician3000 04:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have to say that Technosoul02 has incited conversation with his initial hostile language, and I think that it warrants an appropriate punishment. There was no excuse for his comments here. Insert-Belltower 13:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there's quite enough blame to go around for all involved, past and present. I also think this is being addressed on the involved users' Talk pages and should remain there and not here.  We've got enough things to squabble about here without dragging in outside issues. :)  --ElKevbo 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Redundant (and outdated) image is to be removed
I removed that image because it is an old construction photo of the commons. A new one (which I took last time I visited the campus), correctly shows the latest status. And does not need an enlarged version of the same site.


 * The photo you uploaded shows a DIFFERENT part of campus. Hence, your photo does not supercede mine. THanks. UCRGrad 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The image IS generally the same location. Both sites are infill for the new commons. Your picture shows a pile of dirt, mine shows actual concrete and structual support. I am sure others will agree that my picture stays and yours goes. I have others of the exact same location as yours if you continue to dispute. College Watch 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with College Watch. His newer image clearly shows much progress since the time UCRGrad's picture was taken, and in addition, it is simply a much higher quality picture. The old photo appeared as if it was taken from a camera phone, and a poor one at that. Furthermore, the photography was so substandard that it was practially impossible to tell which part of the campus that was. College Watch's photo is much better and belongs in the article. That is, unless some users want to force the impression that UCR is nothing more than a pile of dirt, which incidentally wouldn't surprise me. -- WHS Talk 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with College Watch. starkt 05:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The resolution of the photo was > 1MP, which is way more than adequate for a thumbnail image on a webpage. Furthermore, the photos depict two different areas of campus, so they are not mutually exclusive.  Thanks. UCRGrad 00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Most users agree you photo should go; it looks like a valley of dirt. I am going to post the same, but updated, site shortly. College Watch 00:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Severe" in article shows bias; needs to be removed
If reader chooses to read the section on Air Pollution, they will be well aware of the severity. Air Pollution by itself as a title is more neutral and more appropriate.


 * "Severe" is a term that accurately describes the air pollution in Riverside, the WORST in the nation. UCRGrad 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's leave it up to the reader to decide how bad the air pollution in Riverside is, and how relevant this issue is to the quality of life in the area, instead of having the article lecture to them. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Szyslak on this. starkt 09:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with replacing "severe" with a more accurate description of the smog in Riverside. UCRGrad 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Enough!
This message is directed at Teknosoul02 and UCRGrad: Either put your differences to an end or take your fight somewhere else. I suggest personal e-mail, so we don't have to listen to you two insult each other. This talk page is not for personal squabbles. It is for discussing the Wikipedia article University of California, Riverside.

Neither of you two are blameless. Teknosoul, it's not cool to scream profanities at another editor, no matter what horrible things you think they've done. UCRG, it's not cool to insult another person's alma mater, no matter what horrible things you think they've done. Cut it out. szyslak (t, c,  e ) 01:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Szyslak, if you saw the remarks UCRGrad made about my alma mater, you would understand why I was upset. No, I cannot justify the profanity I used towards UCRGrad and I admit that regardless of the circumstances (even if say UCRGrad insulted my family for example), I was not justified in yelling obscenities to him.  However, I hope you at least understand my position that I take pride in my alma mater and I do take it very personally if someone insults it (even if the person claims he is just stating a fact, which in UCRGrad's case, is utterly preposterous).  Thanks for your understanding.  Teknosoul02 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Szyslak, I'm unsure that you are able to differentiate between an "insult" and a "fact." The purpose of my statement was never to insult Teknosoul02, but just to provide a counterargument to his parallel example that Rutgers is a decent university yet has a similar peer assessment score to UCR's.  I pointed out that in California, people do not know much about Rutgers in terms of reputation - and this is true.  Teknosoul02, for some reason, couldn't handle this fact, and started spewing obscenities.  However, a fact is a fact...unless you are using a definition of "insult" that I'm not aware of. UCRGrad 12:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As ElKevbo and I have said, neither side is blameless. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 12:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad, your purpose WAS to insult Rutgers. That's unbelievable that your masking your OPINION as fact.  Teknosoul02 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, so now it's my opinon that UCR and Rutgers have every similar peer assessment scores in US News, even though you could easily verify this opinion as FACT by looking it up? And therefore, my purpose was to insult rather than point out a flaw in your argument?  I DON'T THINK SO. UCRGrad 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway to bannish a user from posting to a wikipedia article?
I vote for bannishing 'UCRGrads' abilitiy to post on this article by blocking his IP address. All he does is constantly revert back to his old negative crap about the school. He has yet to post any positive addition to the school. In addition, it is wasting the time of other wikipedians by having to erase his comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.17.190 (talk • contribs) 00:27, August 16, 2006


 * I recommend researching WP:DR. Also, say what you will about his editing tactics, no user is under any obligation to post positive information nor is any user under any obligation to revert page changes.--Amerique 06:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. But no user should be allowed to remove information and qualifications that prevent POV. UCRGrad has introduced POV into the article and done everything he can to keep it there. starkt 10:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear 71.106.17.190, please refer to WP policy regarding WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thanks. UCRGrad 12:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear UCRGrad, here's more from the WP:AGF policy:


 * "Obviously, editors are no longer expected to assume good faith when, despite the best possible construction we can place upon the actions of another, it is clear that they do not wish to serve the project's goals. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, sockpuppetry, and other clear instances of intentional deceipt."


 * In the future I implore you to actually read the policies before accusing other people of violating them. -- WHS Talk 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad, you lost credibility as an editor acting in good faith a long, long, loooooooong time ago! starkt 05:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't be hanging out here all the time watching for every personal attack on this page. There's a limit to how much any admin action can help with the problems you're all experiencing with conflict disputes, etc. I know now that there is a long history to all of this, including a prematurely-launched Arb.Com case. I suggest you all make some more efforts at dispute resolution. I still have no idea who is "in the right" re the conflict dispute or the personal animosities that seem to have developed. That's for Arb.Com to sort out if it ever gets back there. I've put the page on my watch list and will intervene more actively than people might like if I see any more particularly egregious behaviour such as happened the other day. Metamagician3000 07:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've glanced through the archives of the Talk page (there are 11 of them now, I believe), and they document UCRGrad's disputes with other editors -- most of whom have left in frustration. So I don't understand why anyone would say that arbitration was premature or that no conclusion could have been reached on the substantive issues a long time ago. Blatant bias is blatant bias, and it's not hard to recognize. starkt 06:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Starkt, I know I've asked you this before, but regardless of what your justifications are, it is prima facie UNCIVIL to continuously accuse me on a daily basis of trying to ruin the article and make it biased - so please stop. It makes it impossible to communicate, and it really does not serve any good purpose here.  I could easily accuse you daily of trying to add your own positive bias and delete true but negative facts, but I don't because that would also be uncivil.  Thanks. UCRGrad 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your actions speak for themselves. It is not uncivil of me to describe your behavior accurately. starkt 06:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, if anyone involved in the ongoing content dispute wants to get the issues settled, you'll have to do more work at dispute resolution and only go back to Arb.Com if that doesn't get anywhere. In the end, Arb.Com will look into the details of who has or hasn't been stubborn, obstructive, uncivil, exasperating, biased, or whatever the complaints on each side are. But it will expect people to try to sort things out themselves first, via attempts at mediation etc., before it will be prepared to take on a case. Can't you all come to some sort of agreement on how to make progress on the issues? I suggest you get someone from the mediation cabal involved to try to help. Metamagician3000 13:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Been there and done that. :) --ElKevbo 13:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And to add: there were two people from the Mediation Cabal involved before they gave up in exasperation and joined in the user conduct RFCs. --ElKevbo 13:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mediation has actually been considered as a possible avenue of dispute resolution on more than one occasion. However, it requires the consent of all involved parties and has been rejected by UCRGrad each time. At this point, pretty much everything at WP:DR has been tried and failed. Numerous editors (save UCRGrad and his buddy, Insert-Belltower) have taken time off from the article to cool off. Third parties have come in and offered their opinion, only to see their opinions dismissed by UCRGrad and I-B. A survey was done fairly recently which showed that many editors believed the article to be skewed negatively. Advocates were requested, which resulted only in UCRGrad harassing one of the advocates into temporary retirement. Going back to the ArbCom appears to be the only thing left to do, unless UCRGrad decides to change his stance on mediation. -- WHS Talk 13:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, ElKevbo pretty much covered it and even provided links, so I guess you can disregard what I just said. -- WHS Talk 13:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources and Claims
UCRGrad removed my statement about the California Master Plan for Higher Education as unsourced. I put it back in because it is common knowledge, and referred to in some of his own sources.

Then, I decided to look at whether his own source material supported his claims (I'm assuming that he came up with most of the sources and accompanying claims.) Well, surprise, surprise -- in many cases, the sources didn't support the claims. In many cases, you had to register and probably pay money to get the information. I don't consider that a valid source. In other cases, the information was out of date (the 60% of UCR students who had to take remedial English is based on 1999 figures.)

In other words, UCR, two can play this game. If you demand good sources for every little thing from me, I'm going to demand the same from you. starkt 08:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Geeze, 1999? I'd imagine only a small percentage of undergrads who were there in 1999 still are, so a figure from that far back would have little or no relevance today. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 08:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The "California Master Plan for Higher Education" is not common knowledge. Please supply a reference if suitable or necessary. [ElKevbo]


 * Done. But, actually, I disagree that it isn't common knowledge. "Common knowledge" is anything that appears in the newspapers on a regular basis. The California Master Plan for Higher Education has been the regular subject of editorials, columns and news reports in major newspapers for the last thirty years, at least. And not just in California, because California has been a model for other states in regard to the issues addressed in the Master Plan. For example, the creation of community colleges all across the nation. starkt 10:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Merely being required to pay or register for access to a source does not render it invalid. There are many journal articles cited in other articles for which one must have a subscription to read but that certainly doesn't mean they're not valid sources. [ElKevbo]


 * With respect, it does render the source invalid. You don't consult references in scholarly works or other encyclopedias that tell you, "You must pay to get this information." If UCRGrad wants to source his material, he can do so in other ways. I'm sure there are articles out there (that you can read without paying anything) that discuss the USN&WR and Princeton Review findings. Those articles would do as sources. starkt 10:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there an actual Wikipedia policy against this? If not, you would seem to be imposing an additional standard on this article out of sheer capriciousness. There are plenty of references in scholarly works (such as journal articles) to other journal articles that are inaccessible without a subscription.  Regarding the USN&WR and Princeton Review findings, wouldn't it make more sense to consult the primary sources instead of having to dig up what someone else said about them? This could be done by taking a stroll to your local library.  The requirement for verifiability doesn't mandate effortless verifiability.  SoCalAlum 10:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sheer capriciousness or common sense? I don't think ratings you have to pay for constitute valid source material in a serious article that addresses the quality of a school. I don't need to pay anyone to find out where Antartica is, or who Beethoven was, so I don't see why I should have to pay to verify a source that has to do with an article about a university. The mere fact that the question comes up at all indicates to me that all of these school rankings are suspect as highly subjective and unworthy of a serious article about a given university. Wikipedia has its "standards", but that is not going to stop me from having my own opinions on the matter. starkt 11:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The rankings are obviously a revenue source for their publishers, but I'm not here to harp on the validity of their business model. However, I thought some clarification would be in order, namely that your opinions don't trump Wikipedia policy, until you actually set the policies yourself. Discounting a source simply because it requires payment could be shortsighted in many situations. SoCalAlum 11:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that my claims don't trump Wikipedia policy, but as far as I can tell, there is no stated Wikipedia policy on this. So I've submitted the question to the Village Pump/Policy section. starkt 05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The information from US News and World Report is FREELY available at virtually any public library. The online version is available purely as a convenience.  Thus, your argument is invalid. UCRGrad 00:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's for Wikipedia to decide, not you. starkt 06:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 3. Some of the information regarding educational statistics may not be up-to-the-minute. It's quite for it to take a year or two to gather, analyse, and release data particularly on large scales like an entire insitution or a system.  That certainly doesn't mean that we should use information that is several years old and possibly invalid.  If there is a specific example that warrants discussion then please bring it up so we can address it particularly if there some reason to believe the information is outdated and no longer valid. [ElKevbo]


 * The "50-60%" that were alleged to need remedial English (actually, it was 60% according to the source) was based on 1999 figures. That's seven years ago. starkt 10:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 4. If there are unsupported claims in the article (added by ANY editor), please address them (remove them, add a template, place a note here on the Talk page, etc.)!
 * --ElKevbo 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll bring them up here first before I do anything. But remember, UCRGrad simply deleted my Master Plan info. starkt 10:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * | Here is a reference for the California Master Plan for Higher Education. -- WHS Talk 08:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not a reference for this source (it merely mentions it). This is a reference for this source.  Someone (but not me - I'm going to bed) needs to verify that the source is being referenced correctly in the text of the article and add the reference citation.  --ElKevbo 08:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources, WHS and ElKevbo. starkt 05:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Starkt's Changes
While I appreciate your enthusiasm with the article, you are still bound to the rules of Wikipedia. May I suggest you read them before making up your own. For instance, an appropriately cited article from US News and World Report is a more than acceptable source on WP. The fact that you have to pay to access it online is irrelevant. [UCRGrad]


 * No, it isn't. Wikipedia has no stated policy that I can see on "pay per view" sources. I've submitted the question to the Village Pump/policy area. In the meantime, I will hold off on deleting claims "supported" by such sources. starkt 05:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the pay-to-access electronic version is also available FREE at your local library means that the information is easily verifiable. [UCRGrad]


 * Then why not just give the name of the publication that is your source and leave it at that? If you're going to use external links to your sources, they should link to something other than "Subscribe now and you'll get blah, blah, blah..." starkt 05:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, you CANNOT add factual information to the article by using "common knowledge" as your reference. ANY editor may remove information that you add that is not cited - and this is 100% WP policy. [UCRGrad]


 * Is that so? Well, then you won't mind if I remove all that unsourced material about UCR being a coeducational school, being crossed over by Highway 60, etc.. Right? starkt 05:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In Starkt's case, he failed to provide a reference for his "Master Plan" information, and it was removed. [UCRGrad]


 * I provided two references. And you removed the Master Plan information after I provided them. Your criticisms of the sources are invalid. This is an example of your bad faith. No one has any reason to assume that you are acting in good faith. You are not, and as far as I can tell, you never have been. starkt 06:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest that Starkt examine references more carefully before he tries to claim that they do not support the facts in this article. For instance, the following article from 1/06 reference clearly states "UCR however, has many more underprepared entering students in mathematics: 70 percent place below calculus, compared to 50% percent that place into ELWR [remedial English] classes." January of 2006 is HARDLY outdated, Starkt. UCRGrad 12:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've looked at your sources. They do not appear to say what you claim they say. Too bad for you. Furthermore, the claim in the article was that "50-60%" needed remedial instruction in English, not "50%". And the only mention I saw of UCR in relation to remedial English was from material that was gathered in 1999. So the claim was not supported and I removed it. It seems that you are the one who needs to examine things more closely. starkt 05:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I provided TWO sources, one said 50%, the other 60%. Therefore, it "50-60%" is accurate.  If you wanted to change it to read "50%" because that's what the newer source says, that would be fine.  However, you are NOT justified in DELETING the entire paragraph, just because the article says "50-60%" and there are two references attached that support this.  There's a huge difference and you know it. UCRGrad 00:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your first source said nothing about English remediation. Your second source said 50% needed English remediation -- in 1999. So you are wrong. You provided no material in support of 60%, and the material you provided in support of 50% was out of date (from 1999 -- 7 years ago.) starkt 06:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two sources. The "1999" source clearly demonstrates a 60% remediation rate for English in Figure 5.  The "2006" source clearly states "UCR however, has many more underprepared entering students in mathematics: 70 percent place below calculus, compared to 50% percent that place into ELWR [remedial English] classes."  Now, in light of two hard piece of evidence supporting these statistics, how do you justify your repeated deletions of these sentences? UCRGrad 20:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't see anything about remedial English in the 2006 reference. You say something about ELWR. I didn't see that reference, but then I was looking for a reference to "remedial English" or "Subject A". "ELWR" doesn't mean anything to me. How would your reader know what it refers to? And, properly sourced or not, I'm going to take out this material anyway because it is POV and makes a mountain out of a molehill. Most of my UC Berkeley classmates had to take Subject A (remedial English) back in the 1970s. No one would have made a big deal about this back then, and they shouldn't now. Your concentration on this issue is POV, meant to cast a negative light on UCR. So it stays out. starkt 08:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ELWR is the entry level writing requirement. It's common knowledge to people familiar with the UC system and its requirements.  If you are not familiar with a particular area of the article, you should read about it rather than make deletions first.  ELWR information can easily be found here http://english.ucr.edu/elwr/index.html.  Regardless of how many of your Cal classmates took the subject A in 1970's, in 2006, the remediation rate at Berkeley is a LOT lower (read the reference in the article) and it's a major problem, such that it even caused the Chair of the UCR English department to resign in frustration.  IT's a BIG DEAL, and it is vital to this article.  I agree that it dos cast a negative light on UCR, but that is simply not a reason to remove the information! UCRGrad 15:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I remember your source correctly, the Chair of the UCR English department didn't resign because entering UCR freshmen needed remedial work. Second, your endless unfavorable comparisons of UCR to other UC campuses are pure POV. It would be like me writing an article about Berkeley and filling it with the following: "Competition for admission to Berkeley is very keen, but not nearly as keen as competition for admission to Harvard and Stanford, which are much more selective schools...Berkeley freshmen arrive well prepared for college-level work, but far less prepared than freshmen at Harvard and Stanford...Berkeley has seven Nobel prize winners on its faculty, not nearly as impressive as the nine Nobel prize winners now teaching at Stanford...UC Berkeley's campus of 1,200 acres is large, but is dwarfed by the huge, 8,800 acre Stanford campus -- which, moreover, consists of far more valuable real estate (mid-Peninsula real estate in this location being valued a $1 million per acre as opposed to the paltry $200,000 per acre value of Berkeley real estate)..." You might object to my comparing Berkeley with Harvard and Stanford, but given that Berkeley is rated consistently as the very best or second-best university overall in the United States and -- for that matter -- in the world, I think it would be no less "fair" to compare Berkeley to Harvard and Stanford than it is "fair" for you to carp on UCR's shortcomings relative to other UC campuses. starkt 07:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Starkt, you hit the nail right on the head. Ultimately, UCR's status in comparison with other UCs merits one or two mentions, if at all. In cases where we must make comparisons, what matters is how the school ranks in comparison with other universities in the United States. If we look at it that way, we see that UCR's a decent school. It is one of the 100 best schools in the nation. On a related note, if UCR students are arriving with inadequate preparation, is it UCR's fault? Or is it the fault of California's troubled K-12 education system? Remember, UCR has to admit the top 12.5% of California high school seniors. In some of the state's most troubled schools, I can imagine a student earning a perfect grade point average in top classes, without really learning much. szyslak (t, c,  e ) 22:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said, Szyslak. I agree, and I go into the remedial education non-issue in further detail down below. starkt 11:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Chair of the English department didn't resign because of the remediation rate. Rather, he resigned due to the way the campus' administration was handling the program. In the future, I encourage you to read the source materials again and perhaps be more familiar with the subject you're talking about before such proclaimations are made. --  WHS Talk 15:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone who doesn't know calculus isn't "underprepared", unless their major requires it. Notwithstanding other parts of the passage, UC doesn't have a general calculus requirement. I went to UC Santa Cruz, and they didn't care how much calculus I had (i.e. none). If you think someone doesn't deserve a university degree if they don't know calculus, perhaps you can attend the next UC Board of Regents meeting and propose a calculus requirement. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 06:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Szyslak, I think you're misunderstanding what underprepared means. It refers to being READY for calculus, meaning you're math level is sufficient that you could take calculus if you wanted to, but for many majors, calculus isn't a grad requirements...but being at a level prior to pre-calculus (like algebra or geometry) means you're not prepared.  IT's just the wording that's used to describe what the University considers remedial.  You may have strong opinions about what students should know for college, but unfortunately, the University of California has its own standards that supercede yours.  UCRGrad 15:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad, if that is indeed the case that underprepared refers to being "READY for calculus", then again, I'll have to encourage you to re-read your source materials. |Here it clearly states "70 percent place below calculus", not 70 percent aren't "ready" for calculus. As you can see, not only is there a substantial difference there according to your criteria, but it would also make the information in the article invalid (and also OR) as it is based on your flawed judgement. Again, please read the materials before you decide to make such unfounded claims. "You may have strong opinions about what students should know for college, but unfortunately, the University of California has its own standards that supercede yours." -- WHS Talk 15:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I know about higher education standards in California, UC and Cal State schools expect two years of algebra and one year of geometry in high school. Anyone who tests below that level upon entering college needs remedial work. If we must discuss this issue in the article, what's relevant is how many incoming students need this type of remedial work, to make students ready for the "college algebra" classes most students need to graduate. Calculus comes after college algebra. (I tried to find figures on how many incoming UCR students needed true entry-level math preparation, but was unsuccessful.) I read the source given for the calculus claim; it's the minutes for a meeting on high school-level preparation for a UC education. I got the impression the person giving the 70% figure was mainly concerned that not enough students were qualifying for science and engineering majors. The bottom line is, it doesn't matter how many students are prepared for calculus when we're looking at readiness for a college education. We could just as well say 95% of students didn't take Advanced Placement physics, or 99% of them can't speak fluent Latin. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 16:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag
Insert-Belltower, again, please do not remove the POV dispute tag. It is clear that the dispute is still on going, and specific issues have been cited earlier on this page under the "POV Tag, Again" section. Also, the rest of your edits were reverted as they constituted POV material being re-introduced after they had been removed. -- WHS Talk 04:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm outa here.
Dear friends: I was in one of the pioneer classes at UCR (class of 1957). I am a professional writer and editor and have taught university-level journalism (writing and copy editing). I would like this article to be better than it is. I put in some time in fixing up the info and correcting the infelicities. Somebody has been reverting my fixes to their previous sad condition, with apparently not much knowledge about either the English language or the reasoning behind my editing. When that person decides to get a life, I might help you out again. Just let me know.

Sincerely, your friend GeorgeLouis 00:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've decided to come back in as long as other folks are watching my back. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 03:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to include your edits when I revert back after my edits have been unjustifiably reverted by UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower. starkt 08:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, I just wanted to say hello to everyone here...I came here to take a survey from Ameriques, but I think I came too late. Anyway, I went to UCR and I think I could be a good editor here. The article looks pretty good so far...lotsa information about the school. I go to UCLA now (it's way better), but I still remember some stuff about UCR. --Bruinboy


 * Welcome. I am happy that you are interested in editing the UCR article. BTW, you can sign your name with 4~. See WP:SIG. Insert-Belltower 01:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, what's up! I'm glad ppl are involved with editing this article. It was dead over on the UCLA page. 4~ BTW, can u guys quit arguing? 4~


 * Hey, the 4~ means four ~ . ~,~,~,~ w/o the commas.Insert-Belltower 03:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, Bruinboy, although many of your changes are probably true, you need to provide references. Nevertheless, WELCOME. UCRGrad 04:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New diversity figures?
Anyone got the U.S. News 2006 figures for Student diversity at UCR? Last time I checked the diversity further increased. College Watch 04:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)