Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 8

Call for Pics/Deletion tags added to non-GNU licensed images, logos excepted
The only GNU free documentation-licensed pics of campus we have on this site are of the Carillion tower and the shot of campus construction. The images of the students studying in the science library, UV Towers, UV Village, the UCR sorority member, and the woman playing the arcade game were all apparantly copied and pasted from various UCR websites. As Wikipedia's policy Copyrights is to have a fair use rationale for the use of non-GNU licensed images, which none of the latter photos provides, I have nominated these images for deletion and have provided appropriate notice to the uploader's talk pages.

As free alternatives can easily be provided by anyone in Riverside with a digital camera, I humbly request some kind-hearted person provide pictures that give a sense of what particular buildings and the general layout of the UCR campus looks like. In particular, some representative shots of the Gluck Gateway Mural, University Village, the Palm Desert Campus, the Botanical Gardens, the A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management building, the Citrus variety collection, the biomedical teaching complex, the arched pathways, and the big "C" would greatly enhance this article. Thanks--Amerique 18:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of replacement photographs that are non-GNU licensed, I think it would only be deleterious to the article to remove what few pictures we have. I thought we were trying to improve the article!? UCRGrad 05:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We are. Images pulled off other websites, especially UCR promotional websites, make this article look more derivative than it has to be, or should be according to Wikipedia policy. Perhaps the absence of images would motivate local Riversiders to provide some of their own. It would be no problem for anyone to take a photograph of the biomedical teaching complex, for instance, and post that photograph to settle that dispute.


 * Incidentally, I am entirely serious about getting this article up to featured status. Are you?--Amerique 00:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be most excellent! However, in the meantime, some pictures are better than no pictures. UCRGrad 05:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there would still be your pic of the construction site and Ally Union's pic of the bell tower, which are good GNU-licensed images. Apart from those, I would say no pictures are better than bad/non-GNU licensed images.


 * I agree that in an ideal world, we would have non-GNU licensed images all over the article. However, I sincerely doubt that any contributor thus far would actually physically visit the campus and take photos any time in the near future.  Why do you think the photos detract from the article? UCRGrad 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't a matter of my opinion so much as Wikipedia policy. You've argued adequately yourself, many times, as to why we don't want this article looking like it was pulled from UCR promotional brochures. In this instance, Wikipedia policy happens to concur with you. I am merely following through on your rationales for non-promotional information elsewhere in this article.


 * I put the tags up last Saturday. Regulations also stipulate a 5 day waiting period before deletion for anyone willing to provide a fair use rationale to prevent deletion. Absent any arguments to the contrary more compelling than what you've provided here, the pics will be removed by Friday.--Amerique 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish to exercise this particular WP rule, that's your prerogative. I do not oppose modifications to the article that fall within WP policy, however, I will point out that you are definitely detracting from the quality of the article by removing those pictures. UCRGrad 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, we already have non-GNU licensed images all over the article. Those are the ones I am proposing to get rid of.--Amerique 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentially, your edits to diversity have rendered the section incoherent. I take it you are still working in this area?--Amerique 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, all I did was change the order of the paragraphs so that it followed a logical sequence. I tried to preserve as much of text as possible.  I have made some edits that I think make the section more readable and concise, and I have moved the historical information to the history section.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention. UCRGrad 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem.--Amerique 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, there is currently no main wikipedia article on the 909. However, there is an article on the Inland Empire, which references the smog as well as the O.C. and the Kevin and Bean shows. As Riverside can't accurately be referred to as the 909, despite the popular association, I suggest changing the heading to either "the area formerly known as the 909" or to "the valley of the dirt people," and then do further work filling out the 909 entry in its own article.--Amerique 18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * here is a reference to get you started:

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/talk/beyond-the-valley-of-the-dirt-people/15211/

Thanks for the link. I think the article you provided suggests fairly convincingly that the region is referred to as "The 909." If you are truly familiar with the Inland Empire, you know first-hand that this is true as well. I have updated this section to reflect the link above. UCRGrad 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the question becomes to what extent is information about "the 909" relevant to an article about UCR? Are UCR students or faculty specifically being talked about in popular references to the 909? I am not opposed to the 909 or smog references per se, but it actually did take research work on my part to tie smog to historically low enrollments at Riverside. Unless you can provide some information as to how the 909 moniker directly affects the UCR institution or student life at UCR, it is hard to see how information about the meth labs in the IE directly relates to UCR, unless you are suggesting UCR students or faculty are the ones running the meth labs.


 * I'm not saying that this information shouldn't be there, but that it be presented so that the connection with UCR be more obvious. As it is, it appears you are using a "guilty by association" rationale to implicate UCR with the 909 entry, and without any direct connection to UCR, as the entries on smog provide, the implication doesn't hold. Given the local situation, UCR can in fact be looked at as the shining beacon of higher learning on the hill, and it's a good thing it is accessable because without that I doubt many of the locals who go there would have even thought of getting a UC education which at any campus at least prepares you to think. Not that I am dismissive of the Cal State system, but with those campuses focusing on teaching functional skills at the undergraduate level, it seems to me that if you are not a ratings whore and had problems in highschool preventing qualification at more prestigious campuses, UCR and UCSC are your best shots in California for doing well and from there applying to prestigious grad schools. If you are hung up on rankings and prestige at the undergraduate level I don't see why you would pick UCR over Fullerton or other campuses in the Cal State system, which don't have that onus hanging over them. But though UCR undergraduates don't have the prestige, they still have more opportunities to do research they wouldn't have in the Cal State system, so if your ultimate goal is grad school and UCR is your only option in the UC, if you work hard there then you can still get to where you want to go, so why diss UCR for providing opportunities to people who wouldn't otherwise have them?--Amerique 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * UC Riverside is located in Riverside, and therefore big-picture information about the surrounding community is certainly appropriate in this university article. I think people are intelligent enough to figure out that not all UCR students are FROM Riverside, per se, but that they live and interact with the local area known as the Inland Empire.  Unless you want to argue that UCR students are physically, socially, economically, and practically isolated from its vicinity and neighboring towns, I don't see how a brief description of The 909 is inappropriate.  Secondly, I'm not sure where you're going with your comparison to Cal States and rankings.  I agree that UCR students may have more opportunities than CSU students, but I don't see how that changes the relevance of the information listed in the article.  Remember, we are comparing UCR to NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES, and the academic considerations that I've brought to the article (such as rankings, etc.) are definitely pertinent.  Again, I'm not sure what your point is.  Thanks.

UCRGrad 01:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that, or with the 909 entry in principle. As the entry stands it is actually kind of funny, but may not be encyclopedic in a strict sense of the word. Significant further work on the entry, which would probably read as a long list of things wrong with the IE, should probably go in its own article, unless the information somehow explicitly ties to UCR in some way. That's it. I'm not opposed to mentioning that UCR is or was in the area encompassed by the 909 or the IE or that Riverside is a smog capital, and while I am for mentioning the problems with white supremacists and hate-motivated violence in Riverside, I'm not for doing this in a joking sense, as these are real issues.


 * Also, I am not contesting inclusion of the rankings. But as far as rankings go, there are some rankings that you can state without context, and others you can't without seeming like you are trying to bash the school. Notice how the MSU article dryly states that it "ranks 77th in the world, according to a Shanghai Jiao Tong University study,[22] with U.S. News & World Report's ranking MSU 74th in the U.S." Which doesn't require any extra information in order to interpret. But notice how local context is provided for the interpretation of factual information here: "Like other large American universities, MSU has a large number of teaching assistants teaching upper-level courses. This led The Princeton Review in 2005 to rank MSU eleventh worst in the category of "teaching assistants teach too many upper-level courses"."


 * Compare this to the current wording of any of the information in Rankings and Distinctions in the Academics section, and the difference is clear. While some highly individualized interpretations of the meaning of some of the ranking categories are provided, no local context is provided specifically to show how or why UCR does so poorly in any specific areas that are context sensitive.


 * I don't see why it is necessary to provide reasons "how or why UCR does so poorly in any specific area"...the purpose of this encyclopedia article is NOT to make excuses for underperformance, it is to convey useful and pertinent facts about the university - and this is done well. UCRGrad 02:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Without this information, the rankings themselves can't be read as an evaluation of UCR academics per se but as a more abstracted summary of how UCR "compares" to other schools in the UC system, which again are typically way ahead of UCR in endowment, enrollment, etc as UCR was founded as a small undergraduate college w/o a research mission, with an early liberal arts faculty who saw themselves primarily as teachers and resisted that mission, and the other UCs were founded as research institutions in areas that attracted higher enrollments and were funded accordingly by the UC.


 * A comparison of UCR to other UC's is obviously pertinent and wholeheartedly expected. If UCR does not compare favorably to its counterpart campuses, then are you suggesting that we hide this fact or make excuses? UCRGrad 02:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To finish, the addition of information context-specific to the areas in which UCR is being compared is one way in which the rankings section could be improved. Also, US News doesn't rank ag schools. Are there any sources you know of that do? That may be an area UCR does well in. Re: the comparisons to Cal State, I was only trying to say that UCR isn't unlike its sister campuses in what its mission is and what students can do there today, despite the resources it has in comparison to those campuses. Anyway, the history section I’ve been working on off-line will get into some of that broader UC context, but to make the rankings section read less like a list of black marks against the school I'd suggest including more concrete local context where appropriate. Best--Amerique 17:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your suggestions for the history sections (as well as your work so far) have been really excellent. I am not familiar enough with UCR's history to edit that section.  However, I am very familiar with rankings, measures of academic excellence, etc., and I think that the corresponding sections right now are objective and well-presented.  I agree with you that UCR is superior to the CalStates in terms of education and opportunities, but that's not really a fair comparison, as UCR is a *UC* school, and the CalStates are not. UCRGrad 02:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will try to address your comments here. Re: Rankings in context, I am not proposing we not compare UCR to other schools in the UC, but provide some local context towards understanding how or why UCR does as well as it does, on its own terms, not only in relation to other schools in the UC system. Anyone can read the rankings in US News and PR and come to some of the conclusions you have. Absent from the consumer's evaluation is the data those publications used to do the rankings. This data would provide clues as to what specific problems or issues are extant at various campuses that lead to them being ranked as they are. The rankings themselves only provide an abstract overview of any various comparative categories, they are to be used as a supplement, not a substitute, for a critical evaluation of any empirical evidence the individual user can gather in support of any definite conclusion.


 * UCR's rankings and academic statistics are what they are. There's no need to sugar-coat them or make excuses for why they are what they are.  Facts are facts - it's that simple.  I agree that readers should examine the methodology that US News uses to determine its numbers - this is why there are direct links to the primary source - however an explicit rehash of US News' methods are beyond the scope of this article.  Furthermore, if you wish to provide historical context that happens to explain why UCR does not rank as high as the other UC's, that would be most appropriate in the history section.  UCRGrad 06:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I don't have access to the data US News used to construct the rankings. However, I've read most of the transcripts provided in the UCR Oral History project, and from that I've compiled the outlines of a historical model that can account for current problems UCR has with endowment, enrollment, reputation, etc, which are reflected in the rankings and can be used to partially interpert them. I'm still working on this, but some useful transcripts are: Adrian, Carney, Chapman, Hinderaker, Orbach.


 * If you're going to directly associate UCR's problems with "endowment, enrollment, reputation, etc." to certain elements in its history, you will need a source that directly supports what you write. Any speculation here will not be acceptable. UCRGrad 06:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In conclusion, let's work on real issues, not ridiculous non-issues like "UCR lacks a football team" when no school in the conference it competes in has a football team. There is plenty of negative information about UCR to account for already to need to insinuate further negative things about it, or spin neutral facts negatively.--Amerique 19:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * With regard to the lack of a football team, I am appalled that you and another individual do not appreciate how critical it is to mention this. Perhaps you are not in tune with college sports, or you attended an undergraduate institution that did not have a football team.  There is absolutely no intention to "insinuated" anything.  UCR lacks a football team, and this is notable.  Football is the quintesential college sport.  People could care less about the golf team or how many seats there are in the rec center.  It's all about football.  I'm sorry if you don't quite understand this, but it suggests that perhaps your lack of a "big picture" knowledgebase in college sports precludes you from being an effective editor for this section.  And for the second time, we're not comparing UCR to Big West Conference schools, which is composed of smaller universities, many of which are not even considered national universities.  UCR is a *UC* school located in California.  Many UC schools and many schools in California have FOOTBALL teams - this is the defacto standard for comparison.  UCRGrad 06:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While I personally feel that mentioning the lack of a football team is unnecessary, its inclusion in the article isn't a big deal, to me at least. I think most people realize that while some universities in California do have football teams, most, even when discounting all non-national unversities, do not. Only three UCs do, and barely more CSUs. If UCRGrad is going to so staunchly defend his work on this very minor and relatively insignificant part of the article, then by all means just let him.


 * However, I do have a problem with the references to the UCR teams that have played and/or failed in the postseason. To me, it seems rediculous to both mention the fact that they've played in the postseason tournaments, and just as rediculous to mention that they've lost. A vast amount of teams participate in tournament play every year which hardly makes it worth mentioning. And of course, a vast amount of teams also fail to achieve success in postpost season play every year, essentially the number of teams that compete in tournament play minus one. Neither of the two needs to be mentioned.


 * Agreed. It post-season play doesn't mean squat.  I'm not even sure why it was added. UCRGrad 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you are the one who added the information about UCR's failure in postseason play. If you agree that it "doesn't mean squat", a better and perhaps more productive alternative would have been to remove the information altogether, which I notice still hasn't been done. WHS 02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My policy is that if someone has made a meaningful contribution, and it is not a) incorrect, b) unreferenced, or c) otherwise in violation of a Wikipedia rule, it is not appropriate of me to "remove it." If I feel that information is misleading or biased, I will tend to make additions and/or changes.  If somebody else protests the inclusion of information, and I agree, it's not really up to ME (necessarily) to make the deletion - it's up to the person who raised the concern to begin with.  In the case of mentioning UCR's involvement in postseason play," I was not the one who objected to it.  Whether or not the information stays or goes, I do not have strong feelings about.  Ultimately, this should be a dispute between two parties: a) the person who added the information to begin with and b) the person who disagrees with it.  I don't understand why *I* always get named as the responsible party. UCRGrad 05:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So your policy is that if someone has made a contribution that is meaningful, correct, referenced, and doesn't break the rules of Wikpedia you won't remove it? That's fine. Except a couple of things. One, it wasn't referenced. Two, you agreed that it wasn't meaningful. Or perhaps "doesn't mean squat" means that it is meaningful? I don't know. And while I agree that the burden isn't necessarily on you to delete irrelevant information, it isn't your responsibility to add even more, as you did. So, I guess that makes you "a) the person who added the information to begin with" and that makes me "b) the person who disagrees with it." Perhaps now you understand why you're being "named as the responsible party." WHS 05:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, there are a lot of unreferenced lines in this articles, but it's not up to ME to singlehandedly remove each and everyone of them, nor have I made it my duty. Secondly, "doesn't mean squat" means that it is an insignificant accomplishment for a college team to make it to the postseason - it does not mean that "it is not meaningful."  To rehash, I was not the originator of the information about UCR making it to postseason play.  As ONE of the editors of this page, I cannot simply delete other people's work because I feel like it.  However, it is perfectly appropriate for me to make changes to correct the accuracy of a statement or to add balancing information to counteract bias.  That's what I chose to do in this case.  Obviously, I am not "the person who added the information to begin with" because "the information" is referring to UCR making it to postseason.  Once again, I am not the originator of that information.  If you have a problem with it, that's between you and him/her.  Regardless, what's your point?  The information you wanted removed has now been removed.  What do you want from me?  How can I help you?  UCRGrad 06:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it's not up to you to remove all the unreferenced lines. Yet for some reason, when it's something that you disagree with that's unreferenced, you seem more than willing to go out of your way to remove it. I'm merely pointing out this behavior. Also, your actions here further seem to further strengthen my position that there has been a "don't remove, just add more" rule imposed by you, as that's exactly what you did in this instance. And once again, you are the originator of half the information I had contention with, so therefore it is between us two. But you're correct, I took the time to remove it so it is no longer an issue. WHS 07:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would remove these facts myself, but I fear it will be a waste of my time as some people may protest the removal of certain items, but fully endorse throwing more random facts into this article. I agree that both negative and positive facts about an article need to be cited in order for the reader to produce their own view on the subject, however, the problem with this methodology is that it creates one big hodgepodge of facts that barely transition to one another. Just because a sentence saying that Building A on the campus has green tile has an accompanying citation and is verifiable fact doesn't make its conclusion in the article necessary. Further, a sentence with a citation afterwards saying that while some buildings have green tile, not ALL do is also being superfluous.


 * Agreed. Discretion should be used when describing deficiencies in buildings and facilities.  As a counter-example, supposed the swim team competes in an inflatable kiddie pool rather than an olympic-sized swimming pool - this would obviously be notable.  Similary, if the physicians of tomorrow are being trained in basements and trailers, that also deserves mention. UCRGrad 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that everyone on this page is working with the goal of genuinely trying to make this page as good as possible. However, the imposed "don't take anything away because it's fact, just keep piling more facts on top" rule is making this article increasingly disconnected and less likely to reached the featured article status that you all are apparently working for. Just my two cents.
 * WHS 16:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no such rule. Facts should be kept because they are relevant, pertinent, and/or notable -- not just because they are true/verifiable.  UCRGrad 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In earlier archived pages, the removal of information was protested and it was instead suggested that more be thrown on top. WHS 02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please quote the exact discussion in the archive that states that there is a rule imposed that we should "not take anything away because it is fact, just keep piling more facts on top." Please also quote me where I have written that this should be the case.  Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're getting this from.  UCRGrad 05:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "For instance, when somebody disagreed with including information about Princeton Review about poor teaching quality, I defended its inclusion. However, when that same individual argued that we should also include information from Princeton Review about how UCR was one of its "best in the west" schools, I had NO objection - because this is perfectly reasonable." Other people have already argued over this information, so I'm not going to rehash the argument. I'm just pointing out where you implied what I said. WHS 05:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your quote fails to support your argument. You are arguing that there exists a rule: "don't take anything away because it's fact, just keep piling more facts on top."  In my quote, I stated that I had no objection to including information about how UCR is one of the "best in the west" according to Princeton Review "because this is perfectly reasonable."  Let me repeat - "because this is perfectly reasonable."  Notice how I didn't say "because it's fact."  Again, I ask you to provide a quote that supports your contention that there exists some rule to not "take anything away because it is fact, just keep piling more facts on top."  Otherwise, I expect an apology for this false accusation.  Thanks. UCRGrad 06:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument here does nothing to address my assertion that you just want more facts thrown in and nothing taken out. Just cause the facts being included are "perfectly reasonable", that's still putting in more and more to the point where the article has become as sloppiliy written as it is. So hey, I guess the quote does support my argument afterall! You will get no apology from me, although even if I did give one I doubt it would mean much as you've been running around rampantly demanding them from everyone who disagrees with you. I hope these issues become resolved through arbitration. WHS 07:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, here was the quote I was looking for. "I have rarely objected when individuals wish to ADD information to the article. I have rarely objected when individuals wish to ADD information to the article. Wikipedia articles rely on multiple editors to make contributions to the text, and I think that's awesome. That being said, it simply isn't fair when people who are either inexperienced with UC Riverside and/or are affiliated/associated with the school and wish to artifically promote its image on Wiki try to remove important information for arbitrary and inappropriate reasons." Anyway, I'm going to refrain from any further response until a decision has been reached by atrbitration. WHS 07:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a BIG difference between these two statements:


 * a) My personal policy is that I infrequently object when individuals wish to ADD information to the article. [my quote]


 * b) The article has a rule that anything can be added, as long as it is true. [what you're trying to prove]

''':::::::::::::This is just another example (out of so many) of how an editor disagrees with me, I address his issues promptly and directly, and then instead of re-addressing my points, he simply refuses further dialogue and demands that some 3rd party come in and handle the situation. This does NOT seem to be in the spirit of "Wikipedia:Resolving Disputes, First step: talk to the other parties involved." In other deviations from this principle, others have simply resorted to accusing me of having malintent (violating WP:AGF) and have made personal or character attacks when they could not or did not choose to respond to my arguments. I think herein lies the problem. It is rare that I will not keep an open dialogue about an active issue (the exception is when the other user is using profanity or being grossly abusive). Thanks. UCRGrad 12:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)'''


 * Okay, I'm going to bite one last time. First of all, bolding your statement adds no weight to your argument. I know you've been told that before, but you seem to keep on doing it when you don't know what to argue anymore. It's just bad nettiquite.


 * On the other hand, ALL of my bolded statements have been to emphasize an important point - they are usually a "summary argument," so to speak. UCRGrad 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Second, you still haven't addressed my issues. Go back and read what I wrote. My argument was NEVER that anything can be added in. No, it was that things can be added in but things can't be taken away which creates a poorly written article. So I'd appreciate if you didn't tell me what my argument is, and I'd also appreciate if you didn't set up straw man arguments, since you seem to be so fond of talking about logical fallacies.


 * Fair enough. You originally argued that there is this rule imposed: "don't take anything away because it's fact, just keep piling more facts on top."


 * I will AGAIN argue that there is no such RULE, and there never has been one. If you disagree, feel free to QUOTE where an official Wikipedia rule was imposed, or where *I* demanded that OTHER PEOPLE follow such a guideline. If I personally choose not to delete other people's work for one reason or the other, that's MY prerogative. UCRGrad 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the reason why people have appeared, note APPEARED, to cut off dialogue with you.


 * Well, when people a) state that they will no longer continue a dialogue with me, or b) just cease to respond to my counterarguments altogether, I think that this so-called "appearance" is, in fact, "reality." UCRGrad 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because you think you do a good job of addressing our points doesn't mean you do. Most of them have realized that there is little point in trying to make appeals to you, and unfortunately for me I haven't quite gotten that yet.


 * And just because YOU think I have not done a good job of addressing others' points doesn't mean that I haven't. Furthermore, there are a multitude of reasons why others may have decided there was little point trying to "make appeals to me," including (but not limited to) realizing internally that they were indeed wrong. UCRGrad 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And, I think your malintent was pretty much made fact when you earlier were trying to claim that "UC Retards" was a legitimate and common usage nickname for Riverside.


 * I fail to see how "malintent" was demonstrated by including this information about the campus. If you recall, there were numerous sources that supported the name "UC Retards" as a nickname, however, none of them were stringent enough by WP standards, and we were unable to use them.  By not acknowledging that "UC Retards" is a common expansion of the acronym "UCR," you are either a) exceedingly biased, or b) not sufficiently familiar with the campus to be an editor of this article.  UCRGrad 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As for our not having good faith, let me quote something from the WP:AGF page: "Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith." "Thanks." WHS 18:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your quote is largely irrelevant. I have ALWAYS explained my actions, and I rarely have appealed to WP:AGF over the past few months.  In the future, you should provide quotes that are actually applicable. Thanks. UCRGrad 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with all points made by WHS. Furthermore, I don't see how anyone's undergraduate background relates to this discussion, but from prior grad work at UChicago, which has no football program, and my current position as a grad student at U Michigan, Ann Arbor, which has a notable football history, I stand by my previous statement that football is only noteworthy at schools that have or have had football programs. Furthermore, such programs are in contradistinction to what the purpose of a research university is.--Amerique 18:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, not everyone feels that way. Like it or not, having a major football team creates recognition and prestige for a university -- a school's "perceived" reputation by a layperson is boosted when it has a strong sports program (i.e. USC).  Regardless of whether or not a "research university" SHOULD have a focus on sports, the mere mention of athletics at any national university should discuss its football team (or lack thereof).  Whether or not other university articles mention this is the prerogative of their respect editors'. However, as an individual dedicated to the excellence of THIS article, I must ensure that there is appropriate mention of this fact. Thanks. UCRGrad 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

populations frequenting Riverside, California
Numbered among constituents of Riverside, California, are relatives of families displaced when the Kinzua Dam was built near the Pennsylvania-New York border here in the United States. Num-bered among visitors no doubt have been some of the refugees themselves. Call-demand strategies have been operative to write an account of the flooding of the Kinzua River Valley with tons of river water, using a hydroelectric dam, that inundated homes, farmlands and businesses. A historical treaty made with the Seneca tribes existed at that time which prohibited such dam construction "as long as the grass may grow" in the Kinzua Valley.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers used a vote process to consider a change and began its immense project, caring little for the treaty and totally non-cognizant about the actual intent to engineer a jar or bowl featuring an internal moisture-control dam so as contain a mucousal artifact known as an oracle bead chronicle. beadtot  21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this material be more suitable in the article dealing with Riverside proper instead of UCR? SoCalAlum 04:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Article word clean up
I think that the article needs a word clean up; it's a bit long winded at times. I am speaking about the HISTORY section mostly. WPW 18:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to TeknoSoul02 (WP:Civility reminder)
If you recall, on 6/18/06 I warned you that if any of your arguments contained accusations or personal attacks, I would ask you to RESTATE your point without these extraneous comments if you would me to respond to them. I also invoked WP:civility at this time. Above, you have once again accused me of having "an agenda to smear UC Riverside" and "obviously is trying to sabotage this school's reputation," etc. Therefore, I would be happy to respond to your specific points, but you'll have to either restate it (without accusations) OR delete the accusations in your text Thanks.

May I remind you that the WP administrators HAVE looked at my contributions to this article and found that I "present a significant point of view." They believe that this is a "pretty decent college article." The administrators also instructed all editors to "work better at assuming good faith," which is something I would suggest to you in particular. Please keep in mind that FOUR arbitrators independently considered all of the statements/complaints and read the article + TALK and NONE of them agreed that arbitration was necessary. Thank you.

UCRGrad 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't RECALL any of the ARBITORS saying anything negative about the article.Insert-Belltower 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad,

I guess I will just have to concede defeat. However, I still strongly believe that this article has a negative bias to it. I'm not sure if the arbitors were reading the same article as I did since the arbitors felt that this was a "decent college article" that is "devoid of fluff". It is not so much the statistics alone that bother me, but the wording of this article. The constant "UC Riverside is last..." in whatever category, and the constant emphasis on the "low quality" and "unhappiness" of UC Riverside's student population has made me strongly believe that this article is an attempt to slam UC Riverside. I think the statistics are VERY important and pertinent to a college article; however, I do think the way many parts of this article are phrased are extremely harsh to UC Riverside, it's students, and alumni. I have no affiliation with UC Riverside (never attended the school myself) so I ultimately have nothing to lose when reading this article. But someone who is affiliated with UC Riverside will, after reading this article, only feel bad about himself and feel that he is worthless for having attended Riverside. That's how I interpret this article.


 * There is no negative bias to this article. Statistics are what they are, and they are presented as objectively as possible, given that UCR does not compare favorably in key academic areas.  Your speculation that four independent arbitrators read the WRONG article, is absurd.  I understand your opinion, but I do not agree with it.  In the absence of a reasoned argument, all of what you write, is basically "opinion" and it has been noted.  Thanks. UCRGrad 03:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To Insert-Belltower,

Studentsreview.com is NOT a credible site at all. It is hard to tell if the students who write on that site are being "brutally honest" (like this entire UC Riverside article, I guess), or if they are written by trolls. I ask that the reference to studentsreview.com be permanently removed. Teknosoul02 23:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not presented any evidence that StudentsReview.com is not a credible source, or that their survey data is any less reliable than any of the other survey based data the is already included (and uncontested) in this article (e.g. Princeton Review). Your speculation of respondents not being "brutally honest" is not evidence. Therefore, you have presented no valid reason why this information from StudentsReview should be excluded. Insert-Belltower 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Studentsreview.com is nothing more than just mere opinions. The data provided on that website is not verifiable. It is an opinion-driven, not fact-driven website. ANYBODY can post their "opinions" about a certain school. There is no way to verify whether the students polled on studentsreview.com were actual students/alumni or not.

BTW, if you find studentsreview.com to be reliable, then you should read University of Southern California's page. There appear to be TONS of disgruntled alumni who post their VERY negative opinions about USC. Perhaps I should link their opinions to wikipedia's USC page... And why not stop there? Even HARVARD's studentsreview.com page has a TON of people who apparently "dislike" the school. Why don't I post those students' opinions about HARVARD on Harvard's wikipedia page? Perhaps that will shatter the myth that Harvard has the best reputation in the whole universe....

http://www.studentsreview.com/MA/HU_c.html

For a school that is hailed to be the greatest educational institution in the universe, Harvard's educational value apparently doesn't live up to its name. For example, the education quality of Harvard is a mere B. The "individual value" of Harvard is a B-. One student says that "I frankly don't think Harvard has added anything to my education that I wouldn't have been able to obtain elsewhere, and likely in a more pleasant environment."

Do you find studentsreview.com to be credible? If you say yes, then I will post all the above info pertaining to Harvard on Harvard's wikipedia page.....


 * IB has incorporated information from two areas of StudentsReview.com. The first, is survey data from respondents to the website.  Now granted, this is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it is what it is - a survey.  It does not state that most UCR students would not attend UCR again if given the choice - it merely states that of those students surveyed at this website, most would not attend UCR again.  The survey is designed in good-faith and is what it is.  IB did a good job of presenting the survey data without overextending its conclusion or undermining its significance.  UCRGrad 03:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Secondly, it would be inappropriate to take statements from a discussion forum (or even a review site) and call them FACT. That is, if somebody wrote "UCR sux" on a web bbs, it would not be acceptable to write "UCR sux" in the UCR article here and cite the bbs as a reference.  On the other hand, it is acceptable to quote what has been written on a discussion forum and identify it for what it is - if an individual on studentsreview called "UCR" an "abomination to higher education," then I see no problem with stating this fact (that UCR has been called this). UCRGrad 03:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad, studentsreview.com is indeed a review site and nothing more. It is NOT based on fact.  I have no problem with UC Riverside's statistics because they are pertinent to a college article.  But yet you said that the whole "UCR is an abomination to higher education" is not a fact, yet later on, you said that you had no problem with an individual stating UCR as an abomination to higher education a "fact".  I don't see how someone trashing your alma mater could be factual in ANY context (even when you think that it's factual that Riverside has been called an "abomination to higher education").  It's OPINION, and it's not verifiable.  ANYONE can log onto studentsreview.com and post their opinions about any school they want.  Again, for all we know, the person who claimed that UC Riverside is an abomination to higher education on studentsreview.com is indeed an alumnus who is just giving his brutally honest opinion about Riverside or is prolly some UCLA/USC/Berkeley troll.


 * Harvard University constantly has been called "overrated", and has been accused of promoting its own brand name and image at the expense of a rigorous education. Is it okay to state this fact that Harvard has been called out for this?

It is okay to state this, not as a FACT, but as a point of data in the context of a survey. Remember the studentsreview data are not being presented as an "absolute fact." Insert-Belltower 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say this, I truly respect your commitment to writing this article your way, even if it generally does not make a very good impression of your own alma mater. Though you're prolly the first to actually write a rather brutally honest article about UC Riverside. Other people would have a tendency to write fluff and inflate their alma mater's reputation. On the Boston College Law School's wiki page, alumni have constantly touted BC Law School as "highly prestigious" with a "strong national reputation". Of course, the editors of that article could not back up what they say. In fact, all the references they cited had Boston University Law School as the more prestigious law institution in New England (BU has better placement in major law firms, etc.)!

But including a reference to studentsreview.com, and quoting the worst opinions from that site, is taking it a bit too far. There are plenty of people on studentsreview.com that also praised UC Riverside. Why not include those to balance out the negative opinions? Teknosoul02 11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The quotation is not just a random pick. The included quotation is in the context of the survey that says the most students would not return to UCR if given the chance. Additionally, it is featured review on the studentsreview website. Insert-Belltower 02:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me break it down:


 * NOT Acceptable: Writing "UCR is an awesome school" and quoting some guy's review on an internet discussion forum.


 * ACCEPTABLE: Writing "UCR has been called an 'awesome school' by [some guy] on [internet discussion forum.]"

UCRGrad 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I follow your logic, UCRGrad. But i still vehemently disagree that we should include opinions from studentsreview.com.  Especially when IB decides to include the "worst" opinion from UCR, which labels it an "abomination to higher education".


 * Actually, i you read the reviews, the quote selected by IB is by far NOT the "worst opinion" rendered. UCRGrad 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If UCR is indeed an "abomination to higher education", then what does that make schools like Oklahoma, LSU, Kentucky, hell, the entire Southeastern Conference save Vanderbilt? Hell, if UCR is indeed an abomination to higher education, then perhaps HALF the universities should shut down b/c they do not live up to high quality standards of "first tier" universities? [Teknosoul02]


 * The article does NOT explicitly state that UCR is an "abomination to higher education" as a matter of fact. It merely relates an opinion of a student, one that is representative of how some students may feel about the campus.  Whether or not other universities should "shut down" is irrelevant, as all colleges that meet accreditation standards are certainly eligible to remain open, regardless of your particular viewpoint. UCRGrad 17:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No matter how you try to phrase it, studentsreview.com is not reliable nor verifiable. It is not hard statistics, like SAT scores and GPA of incoming students.  If you and IB strongly feel that UC Riverside's article should include some negative opinions from random posters on studentsreview.com, then I will do the same thing for the elite schools.  I start with University of Southern California--that school got about as many bad reviews as UC Riverside.  Why not include those on USC's wiki page? [Teknosoul02]


 * Also, I don't understand why adding an OPINION from someone calling UCR an "abomination to higher education" makes this article objective and neutral. c'mon.....

You haven't really defined what "hard statistics' are and you haven't explained why StudentsReview is unreliable, apart from speculating about the people being surveyed. I don't care if you edit any of the articles of other schools (USC, whatever you like), and I am only interested in improving the UCR article now. It has already been explained why the representative quotation has been added.Insert-Belltower 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC) PS. Don't forget to sign your posts with Four ~ after what you write so I identify it better. ThanksInsert-Belltower 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Teknosoul, I think this will clarify things for you:

Quote from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources: "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion."

Insert-Belltower presented an opinion held by a UCR student, which was published on StudentsReview.com. Given that this was written on StudentsReview.com's discussion forums, it is a FACT that the opinion was stated. Given that we can easily browse www.studentsreview.com and confirm that the UCR student made this statement, we have met criteria for VERIFIABILITY. Finally, as per the excerpt from WP:RS, the content added by IB "may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified" (it can be). So please stop trying to remove this valuable addition to the article. Thanks. UCRGrad 02:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay UCRGrad, I can see where you're coming from in regards to opinions. You're right on this one. I don't necessarily agree with adding studentsreview.com anyway though. It's a slippery slope argument: if we're gonna add some anonymous poster's opinion of UCR onto this article, why not stop there?

However, the studentsreview.com opinion does NOT make this article any more objective. The whole "UCR is an abomination to higher education" is highly subjective and does NOT conform to the NPOV policy in wikipedia:

"NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." [1]

I don't see how some anonymous poster calling UCR an abomination to higher education (something that is highly opinionated) adds any objectivity to this article.

And IB, I don't need to define "hard numbers" b/c that is self-explanatory. Hard numbers includes statistics which are measurable and can be verified by peer review. Hard numbers are statistics which are derived from a formula and are quantifiable in nature. Teknosoul02 12:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Teknosoul02, I understand your enthusiasm to have the line removed, as you've pulled excuses left and right as to why this should be so...but it's not enough just to come up with "any old reason." For instance, you've just picked a random WP policy and said the sentence in question violates said policy - you've provided no explanation for WHY or HOW IB's sentence violates WP:NPOV, other than your own personal assertion that it "does not conform" to the policy.  Your only argument is that the sentence "does not make the article any more objective" and "is highly subjective," neither of which constitute NPOV!!  For starters, there is no requirement that sentences must "MAKE an article MORE objective" - whatever that means.  Secondly, the FACT that a UCR student made that comment IS NOT subjective - it is factual.  It is certainly acceptable for counterarguments and alternate viewpoints to be presented in a Wikipedia article, and at the very least, this is one of them.  I know you've read this article, and there are already "hard numbers" that support the notion that some students are unhappy at UCR - this is just a student quote that further supports this concept.  Before you continue to make reverts, please make sure that you have a valid and well-reasoned justification. Thanks. UCRGrad 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Teknosoul02-- I'm not sure how to respond to your comments. You say you agree with UCRGrad's statements regardings opinions and WIKI policy, but then you say that we need peer reviewed sources that use formulas and are "quantifiiable in nature." To me, this is very muddled and I don't really understand what you are talking about. We are not on the same page here. It would be a waste of time for me to attempt to guess what whay you are getting at. Sorry. Insert-Belltower 13:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * When it comes to colleges and higher education, there is a very strong preference on gathering information from reliable sources such as major publications, scholarly journals, and professional papers. Although I admit that UCR is right about the whole opinion thing, opinions from anonymous, unverifiable sources do not belong in an article of importance such as colleges.  They belong in movie and book reviews, and those sorts of things.  Perhaps you don't agree with me and you may argue that opinions from these anonymous surveys are important b/c they impact the reputation of a college.  I have to dissent to your overall perspective.  Teknosoul02 04:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Note from Recent UCR Graduate from IP address 24.205.124.171
Oh wow, I just graduated from this school with my B.S. in biological sciences and my four years there was nothing like it's described here. UCR is a great science school, we have several nobel laureates teaching as professors, and I know groups of kids who took transfer spring and summer courses in the science courses from UCLA and failed miserably, stating our lower division science courses were much harder than theirs, especially the lab coursework. Our labs are in great condition and the school has been spending a ton of money building not only on campus but helping to build up the area surrounding the campus. This article is completely biased, I've never read anything like it. There is not that much crime on campus, either. I know for a fact because I received an email from the UCPD every time there was one in the past school year. There's also a much higher income regarding most of the kids I knew. Not to mention that I have received numerous educational opportunities from this school. And several well-paying research jobs at great institutions, like City of Hope's Beckman Research Center. Whoever wrote this has no idea what they're talking about. It's embarassing and thankfully, no one reads wikipedia to learn about higher education... they go to real sources with real facts... which are quite different than what is written here. UCR has a good reputation as far as education is concerned. Their cmdb graduate program is in the top 25 science graduate programs on several internet search engines and in several newsweek articles and books I have read on the subject. I switched to another UC for graduate school, but I did apply for UCR again, because it's a great program. [anonymous user]


 * Dear recent graduate, thank you for sharing your opinions on this article. A few things:


 * 1) You provide a lot of anecdotal information, and as I'm sure your strong science education has taught you, "personal observation" is one of the weakest forms of evidence you can muster.

This is the internet, I'm not writing up a theory.
 * 1) For instance, your impression that UCR has "several nobel laureates teaching as professors" isn't quite consistent with the FACT that UCR has ZERO of these faculty.

Incorrect.


 * 1) It is irrelevant whether a handful of academically-inept UCLA students felt "challenged" by UCR science classes. In reality, strong students who had taken AP biology, chemistry, and physics could easily pull an A or A+ in the UCR-equivalent-class with minimal studying and minimal class attendance.

I have kept in touch with these students. All of them graduated with their bachelor's degrees in the sciences in four years, from UCLA. And they had GPA's above 3.2, several of them are continuing in graduate schools. They're not failures by the UCLA terms, so I wouldn't call them academically inept. People have no idea how hard the lab courses at UCR actually are. There's no way you could miss classes and easily pull an A in the organi chemistry series. I know from taking the courses and getting A's and B's in them, myself. Simply put, your opinion is wrong.


 * 1) In terms of academic standards, may I remind you that over HALF the freshmen class cannot read, write, or perform math at the college level.

Same with all the other UC's. Give the blame to the high schools, where it truly belongs. These kids are kicked out after the first year. That would make a more accurate reason for the freshman dropout numbers. THEY ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO STAY THERE.


 * 1) Your personal experience with crime on campus really fails to supercede the validity of PUBLISHED crime statistics. FURTHERMORE, may I remind you that UCR was busted a few years ago for grossly underreporting campus crime rates, in direct violation of their duty under federal law.

They corrected this problem in 2005.


 * 1) Your impression that UCR has a "good reputation" isn't quite consistent with reality - perhaps you'll realize this when you leave the Inland Empire. UCRGrad 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is consistent with reality. I have asked people and been in countless interviews, job fairs and looked into and applied for countless graduate school programs. I was accepted at Johns Hopkins University in their NICE program... with a BS in biological sciences and AS in neuroscience from UCR. I was also accepted at UCLA and UCSD. All on full ride scholarships. There are plenty of opportunities at UCR if you are a good student. Just like any other good university. I think that personal experience from someone who is accomplishing things with their education from UCR is far more valuable than some random person on a student review site. Especially when there's no proof they went there, any more than the fact that there's no proof I went there. All the other university pages on this site talk about positive aspects of the school. UCR's page should be no different. And it's going to stay that way.

The more I read on this page, the more I am convinced that "UCRGrad" is a very bitter alumni who had some bad experiences and is taking his/her revenge on a random internet encyclopedia. I'm amazed at how much time they've wasted from their own life, hunting down every negative article they could find about the school, instead of looking for the major articles from more credible sources that the general public actually pays attention to. I hope you didn't just graduate in June, because if you did, there's a good chance you could have done better on your finals, instead... now leading to another reason you have a personal beef with UCR. Every school and every city has good and bad aspects and to focus more on the positive or the negative and exaagerate either side is doing everyone a huge diservice. As another alumni of this school, it's a little embarassing to see this. And looking at their profile... it looks like someone was/is banned from this site, as well. What a waste of your time, kid. [anonymous user]


 * Interesting theory and series of speculations. For the record, all of the information about UCR I found is easily obtainable using something called "Google."  In my attempt to make this article as objective and informative as possible, I merely looked up all of the aspects of UCR that I would consider important for ANY major university.  ALL references were the most authoritatve and credible AVAILABLE TO ME.  It just so happened that UCR did not perform as favorably in many of these areas.  I don't know why you and others are so hard on me.  UCR is what it is!  I can't change the average SAT scores.  I can't change the fact that it's located in "the 909."  ...but by not mentioning these important facts, ALL readers are disserviced. UCRGrad 05:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As a reminder, it is common courtesy to sign your contributions with the "UCRGrad 05:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)" character. Thanks.

Umar Mohideen is a physics professor at UCR who is a Nobel Laureate. [user: 24.205.124.171]


 * INCORRECT. Dr. Mohideen was NOT awarded a Nobel prize.  If you disagree, give us the year (or cite some actual evidence). UCRGrad 17:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

UCR is also one of the top schools regarding entomology. [user: 24.205.124.171]


 * The article does not dispute this...but given the hundreds of majors and departments, it really isn't that exciting that one obscure department is well-recognized by entomologists. UCRGrad 17:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's still important.

Statistics I have read show that the issues with literacy and math are widespread throughout the UC system. Not to mention that common sense would tell you that this is a problem with high school education, since kids are coming into the school in that position. UCR has an english exam that you are required to pass by the end of your freshman year, or you are expelled. Those statistics are for the freshman class, any student with more than their first year of credits has passed the exam and is no longer in that category. [user: 24.205.124.171]
 * Nobody is holding a gun to the UCR admissions committee, forcing them to admit students who aren't capable of performing a the college level. This just goes to show what the quality of education is like for freshmen.  Note that many of these remedial students can "barely pass" and advance to the sophomore-level...still doesn't make the student body first-rate. UCRGrad 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

UCR sent everyone letters in 2005, stating they were going to be accurate from that point forward about campus crime. And anytime something happened, I received an email. There are areas all over southern California with worse crime than the inland empire. No, I do not live there, since graduating, I go to a different school in another county. Here is a site that others might want to read as well. I found it in less than five minutes. For every site you found, there are more that can refute them.


 * If you believe you have superior sources that contradict existing ones, I encourage you to provide them. So far, I have seen none from you, only anecdotal evidence and your "strenuous insistence" that there are Nobel laureates teaching at UCR (despite clear evidence of the contrary).  thanks. UCRGrad 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that you did a thorough search for both the good and the bad. Everyone is hard on you because a lot of what these links are stating does not contain the whole truth, is one-sided and does not reveal where and how it's getting the information. Plus, the way the page is worded makes the school sound horrific and it isn't.


 * On the contrary, all of the citations in this article meet wikipedia standards and were the best available to me. Everything is presented in an objective manner.  UCRGrad 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You can have just as many opportunities from going to UCR as any other UC. The fact of the matter is, a lot of kids personally don't like UCR because of Riverside. There isn't much of a social scene and there's a few really bad areas. Everyone has to go west if they want to have any fun. That's why kids don't like it. If UCR was left the same but placed in a different city, this discussion page would not exist. That's the truth and anyone who's talked to students knows this. Location is the issue.


 * This is an encylopedia article. I'm trying to produce an authoritative and informative source of information. Naturally, this is NOT the forum to why "kids don't like it." UCRGrad 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

http://aemes.mae.ufl.edu/~vql/misc/NYTimes_20Aug01.html

Not to mention, you used urbandictionary.com for your 909 reference. Everyone knows that website is a joke, it's for slang used by teenagers... come on. I wouldn't call it a reliable source of accurate information. And even if there is some white trash, not only is it everywhere else, too, but it's inconsistent with all of the people in the area. There's plenty of wealthy people in south Riverside/Corona.


 * Urbandictionary.com is only one of the references used to support the information provided in that paragraph. Whether or not there is white trash is difficult to quanity, however, the fact that the 909 has a REPUTATION for "white trash" is irrefutable.  It is irrelevant how many wealthy people live in south Riverside/Corona, given this reputation. UCRGrad 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, let's just go through every city containing a UC school and insert the slang terms for groups of people that live there... like the "bros" in orange county for UCI, the "dumb surfers" living in Santa Barbara, etc. Give it a rest, honestly. If someone did the disservice for UCR that you've done to every other UC school, they'd all look horrible!


 * I'm not here to write the article for other UC schools, because I am not as familiar with them. Furthermore, I am not here to "provide a service" for any school, as you suggest.  Wikipedia is NOT the office of recruitment and publicity at UCR. UCRGrad 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have information to add to the article that is that can be well-cited, I will not object. However just saying that article is one sided without giving very specific examples is not good enough. As for the 909 section, there is an additional reference besides the urbandictionary.com, and this issue has already been discussed previously here. I don't think that reverting the article to its previous form improves it substantially. Additionally, a considerable amount work as been done to make it more detailed. Also, please sign your posts with Four ~. Insert-Belltower 12:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, you say you go to school in another country, however the IP address that you provided is based in Ca.Insert-Belltower 12:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I said another county, not another country.

Oops. My bad. Pardon me. But thanks for signing your post. Insert-Belltower 20:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks for addressing my comments as well.Insert-Belltower 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The childish reverts (which resulted in a ban) and incessant accusations and irrelevant arguments from 24.205.124.171 really don't reflect that well on your alma mater, do they? UCRGrad 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

More from Teknosoul02
UCRGrad,

i don't understand why you are so insistent on including a studentsreview.com article from an anonymous poster who called UCR an "abomination to higher education". It does not make this wikipedia article objective and it only reinforces the suspicion that the intent here is to cast a negative impression of UCR. You constantly refer to UCR as the "worst" school in the UC system. At least the stats you provided back that up your assertion (UCR is last in blah blah blah...) There's a constant emphasis on how "unhappy" students are at UCR. [Teknosoul02]

But that's not the main issue. The main issue is that the whole "abomination to higher education" does not fairly represent UC Riverside. it also shows bias b/c you just happen to pick perhaps one of the worst (if not the worst comment) about UC Riverside from studentsreview. if you are so insistent in making this article comprehensive and complete, then you should include both sides of the debate. Some praised UCR for its smaller student body and the more close-knit community for example. Some praised UCR for its strength in the sciences programs.


 * For the record, it was Insert-Belltower (NOT ME) who added that line. Please stop attributing that to me, and please stop making accusations that I am somehow am "trying to cast a negative impression of UCR."  Remember, the adminstrators SPECIFICALLY requested that individuals assume good faith.  Now as Insert-Belltower pointed out, most students surveyed by StudentsReview.com would NOT return to UCR.  There is an abundance of evidence that students are unhappy, and that the education standards are low - therefore, there is adequate context and setup to include a quote from a students who wrote that UCR was "an abomination to higher education."  It is not out of the blue, as you suggest.  UCRGrad 05:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole "UCR is an abomination to higher education" does nothing to enhance this article one bit.


 * This is an opinion, not substantiated by reasoning or facts. UCRGrad 05:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless your goal is to deter people from attending UCR (and many suspect that is what you are trying to do), then this quote should be omitted.


 * This is a false syllogism with absolutely no basis whatsoever. I'll throw it back at you: Unless your goal is to falsely promote UCR's image, this quote should remain.  UCRGrad 05:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It carries no value other than some anonymous poster on-line said this.


 * I explained above already how the quote is in context and adds weight to a multitude of facts already included. UCRGrad 05:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I can hundreds of quotes from anonymous sources on-line. By doing this, it adds no credibility to the article. Quotes should be cited from more reputable sources.


 * The quote was carefully selected by Insert-Belltower, it's not a random quote. Furthermore, ALL relevant wikipedia policies and guidelines were followed.  I'm not sure where you're getting this last requirement from, but go ahead and excerpt the WP policy you think was violated, and we can discuss it.  Otherwise, don't make up any new rules, please. UCRGrad 05:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a movie or a book review--in those contexts, it's likely okay to include quotes which assert an opinion about the movie/book. But when it comes to colleges and higher education, there should be more reliance on reputable sources such as scholars and professionals.


 * Plenty of reputable sources include student quotes. For instance, many Princeton Review publications include student quotes.  UCR's very own website and promotional materials include student quotes.  The College Prowler series of college reviews include student quotes.  I don't see how you could possibly argue that quotes from students don't belong in a Wikipedia article!


 * The difference is that in those publications, they check to see whether the people involved were indeed students. Again, there's no way to verify those who wrote the reviews for studentsreview.com.  Are they "brutally honest" about UCR?  Are they just UCLA/USC/Berkeley trolls in disguise?  I never attended Riverside yet I can post a review about the university.  Teknosoul02 05:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the review that the quote was taken from, it is crystal clear that this individual went to UCR - he has specific information about the school, and it is patently obvious that he is relating his experience there. The vast majority of reviews are specific enough such that I am reasonably certain and satisfied that they were written by UCR students or alumni.  I'm not going to require an affadavit from each submission requiring them to swear under penalty of perjury that they were a UCR student.  This is also a very reputable website, and probably the largest online college review website available.  All of these things make the quotes/reviews and the survey data useful (though probably falls short of authoritative). UCRGrad 01:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I can make this any clearer. [Teknosoul02]


 * You could. What you're doing is blurting out a billion single-line arguments that are very superficial and easily refuted.  Many of them are just your own "feelings" and don't really constitute an argument.  For instance "it carries no value otehr than some anonymous poster online said this" - these are blanket statements with no basis or foundation.  Please stop reverting until you've introduced a SINGLE solid reason as to why the quote doesn't belong.  Keep in mind that "I don't like it" isn't a valid reason. UCRGrad 05:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said "I don't like it" as a reason to exclude something. And isn't the whole "UC Riverside is an abomination to higher education" a superficial comment of its own?  This is your own alma mater being trashed!  To include a comment (and not hard facts) that insults your very own alma mater does not add any value to the article.  Teknosoul02 05:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well....it's kinda hard to believe that you're NOT trying to create a bad impression of UC Riverside. Why the constant focus on students being unhappy with UC Riverside? I thought your goal was to create an objective and comprehensive article about the university. Isn't including such statements as "Riverside is an abomination to higher education" contrary to your goal? And as a UC Riverside graduate, aren't you even BOTHERED by something as brutal as that comment? Teknosoul02 05:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from making incessant accusations about me. I've already asked you repeatedly to stop, yet you continue nevertheless.  Perhaps you're under the false pretense that it helps your case? UCRGrad 01:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pardon. I would like to jump in here as I see some very muddled thinking on the part of Teknosould02. I don't think it's relevant whether or not UCRGrad is bothered by a comment or not, and the article does not focus on UCR students' unhappiness. As mentioned previously, four third party arbitors, as part of a tribunal, have agreed that the UCR article is comprehensive and well-written. Your zealot-like pleading is not going to win your case, it is only going to make you look like a goon who just does "feel" that the article is good. If you search the archives, you will see a storm of debate that led to the evolution of the current article. Unlike your arguments, the previous debates have pylons of evidence that they are based on, rather than feelings and personal opinions. I would suggest that you scout out some solid evidence to support your case, because unless it has this nexus, your case is very weak right now. Have a nice day.Insert-Belltower 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps with a little more vigilance, Teknosoul02 will produce arguments that reflect reason and thought, rather than relying on psionic powers to interpret them. Any impartial observer should agree. UCRGrad 01:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of UCRGrad, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm simply stating that it would seem a bit odd, that as a UC Riverside grad, it's okay to include a statement from an anonymous source that proclaims UCR to be an abomination to higher education (i know it wasn't you who posted that quote directly, but i'm addressing that issue to you anyway).  If someone called my alma mater (which isn't Riverside, BTW) an "abomination to higher education", I would be really offended.  Just sayin'......


 * Secondly, i admit that a few of my statements may have sounded accusatory in nature and have made an effort to try and make them not sound like that. Yet, though you accuse me of engaging in this sort of behavior, how exactly can you justify this: "Teknosoul02 will produce arguments that reflect reason and thought, rather than relying on psionic powers to interpret them."


 * I'm glad that you realize that your statements have been accusatory in nature, and I expect them to stop immediately. UCRGrad 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thirdly, even if i were to stipulate that studentsreview is a reliable on-line site that accurately reflects students' experiences with the school, adding a quote that calls Riverside an abomination to higher education lends no objectivity to this article and shows that there is negative bias. You (and I'm not saying this in an accuatory manner) have stated that it was your goal to create a comprehensive and objective article about UC Riverside.  But when you include a quote from an anonymous source calling Riverside an abomination to higher education, this defeats the purpose of making the article fair and balanced.  Why not include some quotes from that very website that highlight some of Riverside's attributes (smaller student body, solid science courses, etc.).  You can put these quotes in the context of whatever relevant section you feel would fit in the article.  Teknosoul02 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here you make the "claim" that adding the quote in question "lends no objectivity to this article" and "shows that there is a negative bias." These are great "claims," but they must be supported by facts or argument.  They carry no weight by themselves.  For instance, I could "claim" that the moon is made of cheese - but I would need to support this CLAIM with facts or argument.  Notwithstanding, your reasons for why the line should be removed have absolutely no merit. UCRGrad 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * the quote speaks for itself. this is an encyclopedia article; the goal is to provide objective, pertinent information about the university.  That includes information about the campus itself, the kinds of programs and degrees provided, and statistical information about the student body and faculty.  Someone's opinion (especially from an anonymous source on-line) has no place in an encylopedia article when the goal is to provide straightforward information and facts.  The aforementioned quote does not belong in an encyclopedia article.  An on-line, student-run source like studentsreview.com lacks the authority and credence of a published source like Princeton Review and USNews, both of which have been tested over time (even if they are still dubious in their methology at times).


 * May I remind you that WP has defined guidelines for the inclusion of opinions in its articles:


 * "that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia" UCRGrad 17:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Therefore you cannot argue that including someone's opinion "has no place in an encyclopedia article." UCRGrad 17:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, you are confusing the issue of a reliable source for a fact or statistics, and a reliable source that verifies that someone actually said something. The review section, specifically, is not a good source for facts or statistics (though the collective survey data is).  However, the site, in general, is a perfectly acceptable reference to confirm that someone wrote that he/she did on the site, itself.  UCRGrad 17:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * i'll tell you this: if you're interested in posting quotes from anonymous sources, then you can provide a direct link to studentsreview.com. You can make a note that studentsreview.com provides surveys of students' perspective on the school, both good and bad.


 * and the analogy of my claim to the claim of the moon is made of cheese is completely apples and oranges. a better analogy would be: if i went to Harvard's wiki page, and then cite a quote from an anonymous source that claims that Harvard is vastly overrated and that the school is more concerned about its prestige than the quality of education, then that would be immediately deleted.     Teknosoul02 17:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless you had other evidence that "harvard is vastly overrated and that the school is more concerned about its prestige than the quality of education," your quote would be out of place. In this article, there is considerable evidence that alludes to UCR providing low-quality education.  Therefore, the quote is in context and appropriate.  THAT is the difference. UCRGrad 02:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources
UCRGrad,

I'm glad you brought up the WP guidelines to opinions and reliable sources. I took some time to read it, and here are my thoughts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_source#Using_online_and_self-published_sources

In particular, I looked at this:

"Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them."

So this is why the quote from studentsreview.com should be omitted. i repeated myself many times why this is so, but this quote from wikipedia's own guidelines summarizes the reasons. Teknosoul02 18:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are three problems with this:


 * 1) StudentsReview.com is NOT a bulletin board, Usenet, wiki, or blog.  Therefore, the above rule does NOT apply.


 * 1) The review section is NOT being used as a primary or secondary source for FACTS or STATISTICS, which is what the WP policy in-context is referring to.


 * 1) StudentsReview.com has multiple validation mechanisms (http://www.studentsreview.com/faq.shtml)

Q: Exactly how does it work? A: Topically, it is very simple to understand. Self selecting students come to the StudentsReview site and take the survey. Their survey is archived into a database, where it is analyzed statistically to determine its authenticity. If it passes, the survey appears on the StudentsReview site on the next half hour, and affects the rankings the following day. We delay the effect on rankings to prevent people from getting carried away with "making their university #1", and the delay on survey appearance to the site is done to reduce the strain on our database system and webserver for all the people visiting.

Q: How accurate is the information? A: While technically it is only as accurate as the number of surveys we get on a school, we have found that each survey provides an accurate picture on some element of the university. On a whole, we find that 5 "different" comments (focus on different aspects, with different experiences) give a well rounded picture -- more comments provide more in-depth information and detail of what is going on "behind the scenes" in the university and student environment... Every comment also provides insight into the student body -- besides reading the comment for "truth", it is important to ask "would I like to go to school with a student who makes "this type" of comment?".

Q: Could someone who either loves or hates a particular school go on and fill out numerous surveys to skew the results? A: No, it is not possible to skew the results in this manner. Yes, we allow students fill out multiple surveys -- as many as they want in fact, but we have an extremely sophisticated statistical modeler that easily catches multiple submissions or duplicates. As far as things go, detecting multiple submissions from one person is one of the easiest things to do. But several people have tried to defeat our model so far, without success. We've had 3 years of watching survey patterns, and 6,000 known valid surveys to train on, so it actually is easier to round up 200 different people and have them all take the survey than it is to falsify data to the site. As far as the statistics go, approximately 5% of the submitted surveys are invalid ones (either accidentally or intentionally) -- of those 5%, the statistical model catches >95%. This brings the error rate down to .2% -- 25 surveys/10,000. UCRGrad 22:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)