Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 9

Many statements in this article are blatantly POV.
This is not fair that I've been blocked from editing this page b/c i made a good faith effort to make it less POV. I am a reasonable person and I kept the article almost in its entirety. I have explained numerous times why a few of the statements on this article are, ON ITS FACE, POV and they should be deleted out. This is an encyclopedia article, and the goal of the wikipedia articles is to present a fair, balanced, and unbiased view of the university. To insert a random opinion calling UC Riverside an "abomination to higher education" completely perverts the goal of wikipedia. And this very quote goes against UCRGrad's goal of making this article comprehensive and objective.

Another statement that was subtlety added in was at the beginning (this by Insert-Belltower) alleged that many high schools students were surprised to have even heard of a UC school in Riverside. Not only is this uncited, it is an attempt to cast the university in a negative light by asserting that students supposedly have never even heard of the school.

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting that I'm being portrayed unfairly. I've tried to be civilized in my reasons for editing this article, and I'm the one being punished b/c I made a GOOD FAITH effort to make this article written from a neutral point of view, based primarily on facts about the university. Teknosoul02 02:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, your response


 * 1 Completely ignores the extensive countargument I posted above in "Reliable Sources" and just rehashes the same superficial reasons that have already been addressed ad nauseum.


 * 2 Accuses me and others of "perverting" the goal of wikipedia and failing to make this article "comprehensive and objective." Earlier you promised that you would not make anymore accusatory remarks, and now you're breaking your word.  I'm not sure what else there is to say here.  UCRGrad 04:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not about accusing you. It is simply perplexing that you have constantly stated your goal was to make the article objective and comprehensive, but at the same time, the inclusion of patently negative opinions from an anonymous source (without counterbalancing those with positive opinions) does exactly the opposite.  I fail to see how this quote (and the beginning line of the article that claims that many high school students have never even heard of UC Riverside) makes this article credible.


 * If we are to include that one anonymous student's (if he indeed was a student at UCR) on the encyclopedia article, and since you and IB are so insistent in including that for whatever perplexing reason, we ought to add other opinions to balance that out instead of giving the impression that one (apparently disgruntled) anonymous student's opinion that "UCR is an abomination to higher education" is representative of the entire student body's feelings toward the school. This is not fair to anybody, let alone the school itself.


 * It's frustrating that you keep accusing me of accusing you. I've cleaned up my act and when I want to find out exactly what your goals are for editing this article (so that at least I know why you're including such opinions as that), you claim that I'm accusing you.  I can't have an open dialogue with you anymore without risking being accusatory and this is NOT FAIR to me.  Teknosoul02 12:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The only argument you make here is that you "fail to see" how this quote "makes this article credible." You also argue that we "add other opinions to balance that out."  You believe that one anonymous student's opinion is "representative of the entire student body's feelings toward the schoo."  YOu also seem frustrated that you are unable to "have an open dialogue" "witout risking being accusatory."  My counterargument is as follows:


 * 1. "Failure to see" how this quote "makes this article credible" is NOT cause to have a line deleted. "Failure to see" reflects your opinion.  Furthermore, there is no rule in WP that requires that an article is "credible," per se.  The requirement, rather, is that WP articles are VERIFIABLE.  As carefuly explained previously, the quote indeed meets this requirement.  Deleting a line because your OPINION is that a single sentence makes the ENTIRE article NOT CREDIBLE, even though "credibility" is not an official WP policy, is NOT acceptable.  UCRGrad 13:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. It is not necessary to add "other" opinions to add balance. It is already stated and referenced in the article that UC Riverside is one of the worst 20 schools in the nation for UNHAPPY students, and roughly HALF of the student body would never go back if given the chance.  95% of UCR graduates don't even donate back to their alma mater, which is the lowest of ANY national university.  I'm sorry, but the quote is perfectly IN CONTEXT and it's not inaccurate.  Adding other opinions would constitute "sugar-coating" the statistics. UCRGrad 13:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It just so happens that you cited the Princeton Review's 2004 statistics for "Least Happy" students. This is a couple years old and many things can change in a couple of years.  How convenient for you to leave out the most RECENT Princeton Review statistics since UC Riverside wasn't mentioned on the Top 20 list for least happy students.  Further, you mention that "roughly HALF of the student body would never go back if given the chance", but this is taken from the studentsreview.com survey which polled a mere 42 students.  Hardly a reliable sample.  As for the alumni giving rate, 84% of UCLA graduates don't give back to their university, 91% of UCI graduates don't give back to their alma mater, 85% of UC Berkeley graduates do not give back to their alma mater.  UC schools and public schools traditionally have low alumni giving rates.  Teknosoul02 00:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 2004 Statistics are perfectly acceptable, unless you can provide a WP policy that prohibits references from over 2 years old. The statement about 2004's "Least Happy" list is true, verifiable, and referenced.  The fact that it was from 2004 is mentioned so that people know what year it's from.  You mention a sample size of 42 students - I agree that it is not a large-scale survey, but 42 is a reasonable number of respondants.  If you have better survey data, you should post it.  With regard to alumni giving rates, UCR's is the LOWEST of ANY national university, not just in the UC system - this fact, alone, is worthy of mention.  It is 100% irrelevant what the percentages are for other UC's. UCRGrad 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 3. Nowhere in the article is it stated or implied that ONE anonymous student's opinion is "representative of the entire student body's feeling toward the school." On the one hand, NO SINGLE QUOTE can represent the entire student body's feeling anyway - thus, NO quote would satisfy this requirement anyway (therefore, you cannot apply this rule).  Secondly, the sentence cleary "with one respondant calling the university . . ." so it's very clear that it's ONE STUDENT's opinion.  Readers are intelligent enough to figure out that it's ONE STUDENT's opinion and nothing more.UCRGrad 13:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute ... you said that the abomination quote was one student and not representative of the UCR student body. Yet in the previous paragraph, you said roughly half of the student body would not go back to UCR -- but how could you conclude this from a very small sample of roughly 42 students surveys.  Further, as studentsreview.com mentioned, it is a SELF-SELECTING review site and not a random poll.  [Teknosoul02]


 * What I wrote was an abbreviated way of referring to the survey data from StudentsReview.com that found that half of survey respondants would NOT return to UCR if given the chance. The fact that the survey data was not a random poll is irrelevant.  ALL surveys have methodological problems, which is why it is the least stringent experimental design strategy.  Nevertheless, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is VERIFIABILITY, not necessarily TRUTH.  That is, the survey data on StudentsReview.com is VERIFIABLE, but the exact percentages are probably not 100% accurate (there's no way to know, as nobody will conduct a better study to fin dout for sure).  Thus, arguing against the methods of the surveyors will get you no where - it doesn't change the fact that the survey results are a VERIFIABLE FACT, which is sufficient for inclusion in WP.  UCRGrad 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right about this: one anonymous student's opinion is NOT representative of the entire student body. But when that abomination quote is prominently included in the section about student "unhappiness", it sends a sublminal message that this one anonymous (and prolly disgruntled) student is vocally speaking on behalf of the student body.  Teknosoul02 00:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the abomination quote send a so-called subliminal message is not something you can argue here because a) you cannot prove it and b) there is no WP policy that prohibits sentences that may have "subliminal messages." UCRGrad 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 4. You can easily have an open dialogue without being accusatory by following a simple rule: do NOT make ACCUSATORY statements that ACCUSE other users of having bad intentions. I don't see why that's so difficult for you, unless you normally walk around accusing others of being bad people.  UCRGrad 13:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

--- I would like to add that attacking an editor's motivation constitutes as a motive fallacy, and thus is an invalid argument. See Appeal to Motive for more details.Insert-Belltower 7:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
In the interest of offsetting further revert wars, I propose filing a Request for Comment on the article to gather input on outstanding issues from the larger Wikipedia community. With an affirmative response from either UCRGrad or Insert Belltower, who have consistently represented one side of the debates here, and a likewise affirmative reply from Technosoul02 or anyone else in disagreement with the arguments UCRGrad or Belltower present, I myself will file the RfC, although I will point out that an RfC on the article's content can be filed at any time by any user who does not think consensus can be reached on the article's talk page, and that consequently this action does not require a consensus to be reached on this page. I also point out that only a simple yes or no reply is sufficient for me to do this personally, although anyone could have done this and could still do this at any point in these debates.--Amerique 18:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No. A RFC is unnecessary. Insert-Belltower 18:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I say we go ahead and file one. Unfortunately, an RFC is necessary. Whatever the merits of one side or another may be, there are disputes that haven't been resolved by discussion. Here are some of the points of disagreement as I understand them:


 * How relevant are issues such as "909", hate crimes and air pollution in an encyclopedic article about the university? How much space should they be given, if any?
 * Should the article include the StudentsReview.com "abomination" quote, or any other mention of StudentsReview? Is a self-selected review site a reliable source?
 * I'm sure there's more. As Amerique said, the RFC doesn't have to be approved or agreed to by all users. Let's make suggestions for wording, what the RFC should or shouldn't include, etc. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, an RFC is definitely necessary. I thank amerique for taking the initiative to file the RfC.


 * Generally speaking, I have several issues of contention with the article primarily being POV and written in a way to cast UC Riverside in a negative light. However, I am willing to keep most of the article intact b/c I actually agree that statistics are important and very much relevant to an article about this university and will stipulate that statistics about the university are necessary b/c they are factual and straight-forward.


 * The main issue I have with this article is the Studentsreview.com quote which labeled UCR "an abomination to higher education". I have explained numerous times that the quote adds to the POV nature of this article and that the quote itself is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article that is suppose to present straightforward information about the university.


 * I am also bothered by the recent addition by Insert-Belltower alleging that many high schoolers claimed that they never even heard of UC Riverside. I thank Insert-Belltower for removing that line (especially since it is not even cited, let alone verifiable).


 * There are also several issues I have with how the article is written to make it POV. For example, numerous statements mention that UCR is last in many statistical categories, UCR has no Nobel Laureates on its faculty (despite the fact that the vast majority of universities, even in the US News Top 50 schools have no Nobel Laureates), UCR has abysmal alumni giving rate (despite the fact that most UC schools, in fact public schools in general, have very low alumni giving rates), and that UCR students are generally unhappy and wish they went to a "better" school.  While I agree that UCR may not have the most favorable reputation in California (from my understanding), mentioning all the above and wording it in a way to make it biased and POV adds salt to wounds.  Thanks.  Teknosoul02 00:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally will wait for UCRGrad's response before filing a RfC, or discussing this action in further detail for the time being. Although I personally will defer to UCRGrad's position regarding my pursuit of this action, again I point out that this action could be taken by any and all users who feel that their concerns are not being appropriately addressed on this page.--Amerique 00:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A few words. I think that all parties should agree to the RFC before it is filed. To me, I thought many of these issues were resolved (with exception to the debate with Teknosoul02 which has been making progress). I have removed the line that Teknosoul02 mentioned as a result of our debate. The process of negotiation is working. I see no reason for RFC to submitted. I would like to thank Amerique for getting opinions from all members involved. I feel it is important for these types of discussions. Not that these issues are really THAT contested. I'm sure that if we all went out to the 'ABC' pub, for example, and discussed these issues NO fist fights would occur.Insert-Belltower 02:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice that someone else has already filed the article RfC, under "society, laws, sex." Although the article RfC could also ultimately gather more support for your position, it is entirely out of our hands now.--Amerique 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. So it goes. Insert-Belltower 17:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Intervention is NOT a Substitute for Proper Discussion and Reasoning
I understand that some parties have been frustrated by the lack of agreement, at times, in the TALK pages of this article. Typically, this scenario results when an individual criticizes some of the text for one reason or another, and attempts to provide reasons to support this criticism. When counterarguments are provided against these reasons, the individual becomes frustrated at times. Rather than directly addressing these counterarguments, the individual just "give up" or looks for "an easier way" than exercising reasoning and logic.

Unfortunately, this is not an acceptable or civilized manner in which to debate a topic. I feel that it is important to point out a simple fact: If you have trouble coming up with a counterargument, or you are unable to adequately address another person's counterargument, you were probably incorrect to begin with!!! It's not really a matter of "being difficult" or "stubborn." It's a matter of this: if your perspective truly is correct, it should be easily defensible by valid argument. Unfortunately, not everybody understands this fact. Teknosoul02, for instance, rarely addresses a counterargument. He, instead, has resorted to repeating his same reasoning, over and over, despite the fact that all of it has been adequately addressed in several different ways by two different people. He has ignored these counterarguments and instead, repeats exactly what he said before in a slightly different manner each time. Teknosoul02 has even gone as far as make incessant character attacks, despite being asked not to repeatedly. This is just on example of how these discussion fall apart. Of course, what does Teknosoul02 do? He demands 3rd-party intervention.

Teknosoul02 is not alone. Many users have attempted to appeal to a 3rd party to hopefully take their side. After all, it's much easier to hope/wish that some random 3rd party will jump in and "see it their way" than to actually provide correct arguments in support of an argument. I think this is the crutch that many people have relied on up til now. Recently, Amerique attempted an RFA against me, hoping that arbitrators would somehow take her side and silence my ability to edit. She had been very reasonable up to this point, but likely felt frustrated that she couldn't convince me and others of your perspective. Rather than continuing to make arguments and counterarguments (which I was happy to entertain), she INSTEAD appealed to 3rd party intervention by requesting a Request for Arbitration. Unfortunately, even the WP arbitrators (and these are admins, I will add) agreed that individuals need to work better that discussing the issues at hand. They even determined that my contributions represented a valid perspective.

Thus, I think this should serve as a lesson in that there is NO substitute for reasoning and discussion. Everybody has a right to disagree and have opinions. However, whether or not someone's beliefs should translate to CHANGES in the article is dependent on whether his/her JUSTIFICATIONS are valid and whether these justifications hold up to logical scrutiny by others. If they do, there should be no reason why these changes cannot be made. You should NEVER cease to provide reasonable arguments, counterarguments, or address those of others, simply because it's easier just to request 3rd-party intervention and cross your fingers that they will side with you. Thanks. UCRGrad 19:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad,


 * All I really ask is that you remove a line which called UCR an "abomination to higher education". I don't understand why you are so adamant as to keeping this statement (I know you didn't write it, but I am conveying this message to you nevertheless).  I am actually willing to keep most of the article "as is", but the wording of much of the article does not comply w/ NPOV.  I gave valid reasons explaining why parts of the article (particularly the line "abomination to higher education") are POV, but obviously, we are not on the same boat.  Yes, I acknowledge that the abomination quote is just one student's opinion.  I acknowledge that the quote comes from an on-line source.  But one has to question the validity of the source (a website with reviews written by anonymous, self-selecting "students") with no way to tell whether they are who they claim they are.  Even if I were to stipulate to this fact, this is an encyclopedia article and the goal is to provide objective, straightforward facts about the university.  Using a quote that is a slap in the face to the insitution (I don't care how lousy the school's reputation is, reputation is perception and perception does not always mean truth) and this "opinion" of calling a university an abomination should be reserved for a college review site.  Wikipedia is not a forum to promote nor denigrate a school.

Once again, you've made the SAME arguments, which have already been addressed. I will re-respond to them. This time, however, I expect you to respond directly to my counterarguments. Your arguments are as follows: UCRGrad 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

'''::Teknosoul Argument #1: StudentsReview.com is not a valid source because there is no way to confirm the identity of the student reviewers. '''


 * Response: First of all, the article simply states that "one respondant" on StudentsReview.com called UCR "an abomination to higher education." Indeed, one survey respondant DID say this on the website.  For the purposes of verifying that a respondant did actually write what he did, it is only logical to use StudentsReview.com as the citation.  Please note that Wikipedia officially allows us to include a published opinion in the article, explaining, "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."  Whether or not the students have sworn affadavits proclaiming their enrollment at UCR is not relevant, because it doesn't change the simple fact that: a respondant on StudentsReview.com called UCR "an abomination to higher education."  UCRGrad 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will further remind you that StudentsReview.com employs very sophisticated validation mechanisms, as follows:

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 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

'''::Teknosoul Argument #2: This is an encyclopedia article and the goal is to provide objective, straightforward facts about the university. Using a quote that is a slap in the face to the insitution...and this "opinion" of calling a university an abomination should be reserved for a college review site."'''


 * I agree that the article should be objective, and that facts should be provided, although the definition of "straightforward facs" is subjective, undefined, and not officially mentioned in WP policy. However, from WP policy, we DO know that OPINIONS are perfectly acceptable in an article.  Again, from WP policy: "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."  Thus, your argument that we cannot include an "opinion" in an encyclopedia article is specifically contradicted by official WP policy (which you are not in a position to change.) UCRGrad 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My main issue of contention is the "abomination to higher education" quote and I request that we have some third parties take a look at this quote, and the context it is in and see whether this quote violates the NPOV rule or not. If possible, I would also ask that third parties take a look at some other issues of contention I have including: no Nobel Laureates, the "low" alumni giving rate, the student "unhappiness", and the 909 "stigma". Thanks. Teknosoul02 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a textbook example of what I was describing above...how instead of engaging in discussion, people immediately jump to "third parties" to come in. How much dialogue have we had regarding your personal opinion that the article violate NPOV policy?  Very little.  I have yet to see a formal argument as to how on earth this article is POV.  Do you even realize that FOUR WP arbitrators (all admins) looked at the work myself and others have done over the past few months and praised its progress!?  Don't you think that FOUR WP admins would have NOTICED if the article was as NPOV as you have convinced yourself?  By failing to discuss issues, and immediately demanding third-party involvement, you waste everyone's time, including the people you've dragged into this.  Amerique already wasted valuable resources by requesting an RFA less than a month ago - I don't see why you feel the need to repeat this nonsense. UCRGrad 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad,


 * Earlier, I have STIPULATED that opinions are allowed per the wiki policy. HOWEVER, even when I stipulate to this, the quote itself, the whole "UCR is an abomination to higher education", on its face, is contrary to the bedrock principle that a wikipedia article should be NPOV: neutral point-of-view that is fair, balanced, and presents the information fairly and free from the coloration of any bias, potential and realized.  I have repeated this argument ad nauseam because I will stand up for what is right.  Teknosoul02 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)- this case reverting the page multiple times in response to absolute stances. Not to lecture you, but 3rd party dispute resolution is a key institution of civil society and is not a process opposed to or devoid of rational or civil discourse. [Amerique]


 * Except for the fact that even in our society, 3rd party "dispute resolution mechanisms" are typicall LAST RESORT interventions. If your next door neighbor makes a lot of noise, what do you do first - sue him in civil court, or knock on his door and ask him to turn down his music?  ...and EVEN IF an attorney were hired, he would likely attempt to settle out of court, given the extreme time and expense of courtroom litigation.  The problem is amplified even more on Wikipedia, since you have volunteer administrators, who work for no compensation, trying to make this encyclopedia authoritative and extraordinary.  Do you think the admins really should spend time on petty complaints from individuals (such as yourself) who prefer to waste admin time rather than continue to discuss a dispute?  That's simply not fair to them.  This is why there are rules in place for when it is appropriate to RFA.  The FIRST rule is to discuss the matter with all parties - you couldn't even live up to this requirement, and FOUR arbitrators sided against you.  I don't see how your action is even remotely defensible here. Thanks. UCRGrad 01:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, UCRGrad, in response to your comments here and elsewhere I am currently exploring every available avenue of dispute resolution in order to settle these matters. I'm not getting paid for this, either.--Amerique 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But anyway, I've looked over the Studentreview site and found a quote that may broker a compromise between your postion and Technosoul's. How do you feel about substituting


 * UCR is an abomination to higher education.


 * with:


 * The thing about UCR is alot of the students have no pride for their school and because of this alot of negative views on UCR get passed on to their friends and etc. Although overall this is a major bummer, for those few students that do try to succeed in this type of environment.. it is a fantastic opportunity. Unlike larger schools where there is more competition, if a student even remotely puts a little effort into anything, they can succeed.


 * Which seems to me to be both more informative in itself and more explanatory of other statistics in that paragraph. (Also, the masculine pronoun is appropriate when refering to me in the third person.)--Amerique 14:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The masculine pronoun would be appropriate when referring to you in the third person, if and only if, you are indeed a man, which I believe you are not. UCRGrad 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you can believe what you want. I think you are a real sweetheart, anyway.--Amerique 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, just the first sentence of that quote would get the point across, and in a much more neutral manner than the abomination to higher education statement, which, colorful as it is, doesn't really serve to explain anything. It's like saying, for instance, Berkeley is the Harvard of the West... however many times and in however many places you can find this in print it would still only be an obviously biased opinion, however much the alumni of the school may agree with it. Direct quotes that don't serve to explain or substantiate the subject of a paragraph are useless, I think, for the purposes of this encyclopedia.--Amerique 15:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So let me get this straight. You want to replace a concise and well-written summary quote with the following: "The thing about UCR is alot [sic] of the students have no pride for their school and because of this alot [sic] of negative views on UCR get passed on to their friends and etc."  Not only does this student make a fourth-grade writing error (usage of "alot"), but the sentence is a terrible run-on, is devoid of any punctuation, and has "abominable" logical structure.  You've GOT to be joking, right?
 * No, I am serious. The sentence may not be grammatical, but does a better job of showing context for "student happiness" statistics than "UCR is an abomination," which explains nothing.--Amerique 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I have an obvious problem with placing a grammatically-poor, illogically-structured quote in ANY article, regardless of what the statement actually means when the grammar is fixed, punctuation is added, nonexistent words are deleted, etc. I thought you were trying to IMPROVE the article!? UCRGrad 02:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Secondly, you and Teknosoul STILL have failed to establish what is so non-neutral and NPOV about the abomination quote. If you are going to edit other people's work, you should have valid justification.  Your own personal preference just doesn't cut it.  I'll see what IB has to say about your suggestion.  UCRGrad 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I already explained that with the comparison to "Berkeley is the Harvard of the West" quote, which also means nothing. Neither that statement nor "UCR is an abomination" explain or provide context for anything.--Amerique 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well holy broken english batman! I think I've missed something. I don't understand how the suggested quotation is explanatory of the other statistics in the section or paragraph, and definately not related to the 52% of students who would not return to UCR. The implied reasoning of this sentence is circular: UCR Students have low pride and negative views get passed friends (other students) negative facts which gives the UCR student low pride.... Running through my head is confusing. This sentence fails to substantiate anything, except for the statistic that says many UCR students cannot write at the college level (Joking). I would prefer a more precise and declarative quote. Insert-Belltower 01:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I would agree that we run into a "chicken before the egg" problem with UCR students having "no pride for their school" and the stats on student happiness, alumni giving, etc. but the quote complements and provides some explanatory context for the stats which the abomination quote, to my mind, does not. Note how the Hinderaker quote on smog explains and provides context for historically low enrollment levels. We can't really say for sure that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between the two, but we can use the quote to say that he thought there was a corelation. The "no pride" quote provides context for other stats in that paragraph.--Amerique 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is that we should replace the abomination quote with one that "provides some explanatory context" for the stats on "student happiness" and "alumni giving." In other words, you want to "make excuses" for the school's subpar performance markers? UCRGrad 02:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you only see context as an "excuse for?" Is smog only an "excuse for" the enrollment drop in the 70s? Nothing in this universe ever happens independently of context. When we provide quotes that show context for hard stats or other factual information, we are not trying to "excuse" this information, we are trying to explain or show the cause or the effect of this information in the human dimension.


 * Because when you are providing an "explanatory context" for negative statistics and facts, in reality, this is the basic equivalent of "making excuses." Now, I don't have a problem with providing REFERENCED "explanatory contexts" - i.e. low enrollment secondary to the pollution problem.  However, if you are going to provide these "explanatory contexts" for every negative fact de novo (that is, WITHOUT an explicit citation that states ABC fact exists because of CDE reason), you are "sugar-coating" the article and adding your own personal "excuses" for the university's faults - and this is clearly NOT acceptable.  In this case, unless you have a verifiable source that demonstrates that student unhappiness and low alumni giving are caused by "lack of pride," you should not attempt to select a quote that attempts to imply this.  UCRGrad 03:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well UCRGrad, as you seem to categorically regard the inclusion of relevant context for negative information as "sugar-coating" the article, on what basis are you arguing for the "abomination" quote to begin with? How, exactly, is this quote not implying what you are claiming the "no pride" quote does imply?


 * Incidentially, I looked around the studentsreview site again, but could not find a better quote that addresses the multiplicity of negative points of view on UCR than that one. I can fix the grammar, if that's a problem. Either way, I would say that if context is relevant to a certain percentage of respondents saying in a survey that they would not return to UCR, the "no pride" quote, faults and all, does a better job of explaining that than the "abomination" quote, if either statement should in fact be included.--Amerique 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "If you are going to edit other people's work, you should have valid justification". What a revealing statement. UCRGrad, this is not your page. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 01:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How does that statement reveal anything?Insert-Belltower 01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UCRGrad,


 * From wiki's policy on NPOV:
 * "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.


 * As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."


 * "Fairness of tone
 * If we're going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.


 * We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail."


 * Thank you for cutting/pasting WP policy above. Please note that I am already aware of the above and I do not believe that the quote violates any of it. UCRGrad 03:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "abomination to higher education" quote already gives the readers a preconceived negative notion of UC Riverside without allowing them to do the research and learning about the school itself. [teknosoul02]


 * Obviously, this is untrue. Unless you are psychic, it is impossible to predict with certainty that readers will suddenly develop a preconceived negative notion of UCR without allowing them to do research.  On the other hand, the article is many pages long and contains a wealth of information and statistics, of which the quote is just a few words long.  I find it shockingly hard to believe that ANY reasonable individual could be swayed to pervasively by a single quote, given ALL of the other information available to read in the article UCRGrad 03:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By making this a prominent quote in a section about "Retention, Recruitment, and Alumni", ... [Teknosoul02]


 * I do not agree that this is a prominent quote. What makes it prominent?  Is it bolded?  Is it italicized or all in caps?  No.  It's just another sentence in the paragraph that occurs in-context.


 * it casts aspersions on the school itself [Teknosoul02]


 * Not really. All it does is provide the opinion of a single student, which you already acknowledge.  You could argue that ANY negative fact about UCR "casts aspersions on the school itself"...but is this a reason to exclude all of the negative facts?  Obviously not. UCRGrad 03:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * and does not confrom to NPOV. [teknosoul02]


 * Since this is the conclusion you're trying to prove, you can't really use it as a premise as well. UCRGrad 03:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote itself is also in opposition to the subject b/c it has the POTENTIAL to give readers the impression that this one (apparently disgruntled student) is vocally representing the UC Riverside student body and that they are very unhappy with the school (I didn't claim that he was speaking the truth, just that that the potential impression it can leave on readers). teknosoul02 02:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So you're suggesting that a reasonable person would somehow read the quote and believe that a single student's opinion, taken off a review website, actually "vocally" represents the UCR STUDENT BODY? That's absolutely preposterous and an insult to the intelligence of our readers. UCRGrad 03:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Revisted
I realize that doing this may be pointless as editors on all sides have been butting heads over the content of this article, but here are some quotes from the WP:NPOV_DISPUTE page that I believe apply to this article and may help UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower understand why the rest of feel this article is negatively biased.
 * The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.


 * I have NEVER EVER made the claim that because a statement is factual, it is therefore neutral. Just because you can copy and paste sections of WP policy, it doesn't mean it actually is applicable.  The confusion, rather, is that your camp mistakenly believes that NEGATIVE FACTS constitute bias.  You people seem to be under the false pretense that the mere mention of any facts that do not make UCR sound like the "Harvard of the West" makes the article non-neutral.  THAT, in and of itself, is the problem. UCRGrad 13:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.


 * You've been away for a while, WHS, but FOUR arbitrators have already reviewed this article in an attempted RFA by Amerique. All four of them agreed that the this has become  "a pretty decent college article" and that my contributions "present a significant point of view."  Therefore, it is quite irrelevant that a number of "interested parties" believe that the article is biased, because their OPINIONS and GUT FEELINGS just don't supercede decisions made by a panel of WP administrators. UCRGrad 13:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ''There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:
 * ''*While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
 * ''*Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance).
 * ''*The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.
 * ''*A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.

I hope this assists in explaining why so many feel the article is negatively biased. While selecting quotes such as "UCR is an abomination to higher education" to place in the article is indeed allowable, the above shows why it constitutes POV. Similarly, doing something such as taking an article which showed how the UC as a whole failed to compile accurate crime statistics and singling out UCR also would qualify as selectively including and ommitting facts. In any case, I hope the article of the quality improves despite the disputes among editors and apparent vandalism by some unregistered person.--WHS 10:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You actually fail to demonstrate anything. All you've done is copy and paste WP policies that don't specifically apply to this article.  MANY individuals have tried to explain why they felt the article was biased, and none of these explanations have held up to simple scrutiny (that is, first-order counterarguments).  This is why the NPOV tag was removed a long time ago.  If you'd like to provide an argument that can demonstrate that this article is biased, I'd definitely like to hear it.

Mere "selectively including and omitting facts" is done for EVERY STATEMENT ADDED TO EVERY ARTICLE - it is unusual that we can "include everything" and in some circumstances, doing so is burdensome and just adds "extra junk" to a paragraph. You bring up crime statistics? Well what if we ommitted the information about how UCR failed to correctly report certain crimes for many years, and we just include the published numbers? The statistics would then be a gross underestimate!!! That would introduce a false-positive bias! This is why, since the statistics are likely to be underreported, this fact should be mentioned along with the numbers to ensure accurate reporting of statistics. You don't have an argument here. UCRGrad 13:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't say that I expected you to agree with me. Couple of things though. Stop saying that four arbitrators didn't "agreed that the this has become 'a pretty decent college article'". One arbitrator did, and one more cited that arbitrator's reasons as why arbitration was rejected. The other two rejected the case on the grounds that not enough prior dispute resolution had been tried, not because the article was neutral. So please, it's quite inaccurate to say that you have the blessing of four arbitrators to continue this. [WHS]


 * It's not a matter of expectation of not. If you have good points, I'll agree with you.  If you don't, then I won't.  It's nothing personal.  With regard to the RFA decision, you are incorect.  One arbitrator specifically volunteered that this was "a pretty decent college article."  At least two OTHER arbitrators specifically AGREED with the first's comments.  And another arbitrator specifically indicated that my contributions respesented "a significant point of view."  Nobody held a gun to their head to volunteer these comments.  In fact, since this was a formal complaint from Amerique, I'm pretty sure they could have used the space to criticize my work, if they really felt it was detrimental - but they didn't.  The RFA may have been struck down based on technical grounds (insufficient dispute resolution), but the admins made it VERY CLEAR what their standpoint on the article was - and it wasn't in your favor. Thanks. UCRGrad 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that I indeed miscounted and I apologize for that. The RFA page was hard to follow after the case was removed and readded and removed and so on. In anycase, the arbitrators who didn't give their own opinion and agreed with Morven likely did so due to the nagging for a reason on our part. In anycase, they've recommended RfCs which your "camp" has turned down multiple times. --WHS 07:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's your responsible to check your facts before you contradict somebody elses. In addition, the other who arbitrators agreed with Morven's findings and did not write an independent statement, most likely because they 100% agreed and had nothing else to add.  UCRGrad 15:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now as for your points. You may have never made the actual statement that because something is factual it is neutral, but you've done things that clearly show you believe it, such as your attempts to include "UC Rejects", the whole "909" section, etc. Both are obviously negative, yet you've made staunch defenses of them. Again, I'm not saying that negative information shouldn't be included, it should. I'm perfectly fine with the admissions data, the lack of a football team, and your included rankings and distinctions information. Those all convey informative facts about the school. My "camp", by which I'm referring to those of us genuinely trying to improve the article and not those people earlier who didn't allow anything bad about UCR whatsoever, has always welcomed negative information. It's both inaccurate and an WP:AGF violation to say that we haven't.


 * I'm glad you agree that I have never stated the equivalent of: because something is factual, it is also neutral. You may infer what you please, but keep in mind that these are only your own personal interpretations.  They are not consistent with my actual standpoint.  If you people in your camp have truly "welcome negative information," then you have at least 20 pages of TALK pages to explain, which largely consist of "your people" complaining about the PRESENCE of negative facts and paragraphs.  Perhaps you can point out objections you guys have had that WERE NOT negative facts in the article!?  Otherwise, I stand behind my comments.  There obviously is no inaccuracy, and certainly no WP:AGF violation, despite your attempt to "force" a WP policy to apply when it really doesn't. Thanks. UCRGrad 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, spare me. I've made few complaints about many facts in this article which others percieve as negative. The only things in the article that I've contested in the talk page were the inclusion of postseason play (which you agreed with) and Nobel Laureates. And, if you'll notice, most of us are okay with much of the article, it's just that we each have different things that we disagree with. We've made compromises on much of the article, but the archives can be explained by your disagreement. One person doesn't agree with you on something, and that becomes a one page debate. Another person disagrees with you on a different point, it becomes another page, etc. I think that adequately explains it. Many of us have made concessions, it would be nice if you could as well.--WHS 07:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I stand by my point. The only content "your people" have a problem with are the inclusion of negative facts.  Your two examples just further substantiate this point.  The fact is, much of the negative information in this article *IS* objectively written and difficult to justify removing with a reasonable argument - THIS is why many of you do not "object" to it formally.  However, to say that you "welcome negative information" is preposterous. UCRGrad 15:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well clearly all we have problems with are the inclusions of negative facts. The whole debate centered around this article is based on the fact that we believe this article is slanted too strongly towards the negative side. My point, which you apparently failed to see, was that most of us only have problems with few of your changes to this article, while you oppose nearly all of ours. --WHS 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you now (finally) agree that you people have problems with "the inclusions of negative facts." If you had just stated this to begin with, rather than submitting an obviously false statement, that "you welcome negative facts," we could have saved several paragraphs of discussion.  In the future, you could save a lot of time/energy by just stipulating facts that are already patently obvious.  Thanks. UCRGrad 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't put words in my mouth. We have no problems with the inclusion of negative facts. There are tons of negative facts that we've allowed to stay. It's merely the overwhelming amount of negative facts that we have trouble with. In the future, you could save a lot of time/energy but not suggesting people are saying things that they aren't. Thanks. --WHS 03:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps I had difficulty understanding what you meant by "we clearly all we have problems with are the inclusions of negative facts," which lacks a clear subject, verb, subject/verb agreement, and logical structure. thanks. UCRGrad 04:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's funny, because I never said exactly what was in your quote. I wouldn't run around lecturing people on subject/verb agreement when you neither know how to quote correctly, nor know how to captialize letters. Not only that, you once again ignored what I said and instead chose to pick out something else about what I wrote. Don't accuse others of doing just that when you do the same. Also, I thought you were above patronizing statements? I guess not. "thanks."--WHS 05:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WHS contradicts himself:
 * Statement #1: "My 'camp'...has always welcomed negative information." 9 July 2006
 * Statement #1: "Well clearly all we have problems with are the inclusions of negative facts" 21:40, 9 July 2006
 * Please try to be consistent. Inconsistency is the hallmark of irrational argument, and it makes it very difficult to reason with individuals who practice such. Thanks. UCRGrad 07:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it appears that way if things are taken out of context. Watch, I can do it too:
 * Statement #1: "I think it's perfectly reasonable to compare UCR to other "schools" in its "class" -- that is other "University of California" campuses"
 * Statement #2: "Since this is a UCR article, it is appropriate just to mention UCR."
 * Statement #3: "Please try to be consistent. Inconsistency is the hallmark of irrational argument, and it makes it very difficult to reason with individuals who practice such. Thanks." --WHS 08:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The two statements are NOT mutually exclusive. It is perfectly reasonable to COMPARE UCR to other schools in its class.  It is also appropriate to mention UCR-only when it is just UCR and UCI that failed to compile Clery Act statistics for 10 years.  There is no contradiction here.  By providing a "distraction argument," I'm assuming that you admit that you made contradictory statements?  Your statements were unquestionably inconsistent. UCRGrad 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Since you clearly missed it, I pointed out why it looks like statements may contradict each other if they're taken out of context. You took mine out of context, which is why they appear to be conflicting. I took yours out of context, same thing. I wasn't even trying to provide a "distraction argument", that's something you took it to be. I forgive you for your misunderstanding. Thanks. :) --WHS 03:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, in or out of context, your two statements are clearly contradictory. They very clearly say the exact opposite.  Sorry. UCRGrad 03:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, in that case, so are yours. "They very clearly say the exact opposite. Sorry."--WHS 03:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And, obviously, of course selectively including facts is done for every article on every subject on Wikipedia. The difference is, for other articles it is typically done with a fair amount of weight given to each side. Going back to the crime statistics example, instead of saying that UCR specifically failed to correctly report crime statistics (doing so makes it seem like UCR was the only school to), mention how the entire UC did. That's just one example of the subtle inclusion of negative bias. The UC of course includes UCR, and I think our readers are bright enough to come to that conclusion. I'll make that change right now, come to think of it. [WHS]


 * If you read the reference, you will find that many UC schools did not have perfect compliance with the Clery Act, but "Nowhere in the UC system are Clery violations so pronounced as at UC Riverside and UC Irvine. Over the last 10 years neither of the two schools compiled any Clery statistics." Thus, it would be seriously inaccurate to change the statement in the article to say "the entire University of California."  Please do not make changes without carefully reading the corresponding reference.  Otherwise, you risk compromising the accuracy of the article.  thanks. UCRGrad 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be inaccurate to say that it applied to the entire UC when it actually did? There's something new. --WHS 07:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that your version and my version are both accurate. Thus, the preferable revision is one that is MORE accurate, MORE relevant, and BETTER reflects the data in the citation.  For instance, we could change the line to "Some schools in California failed to report..."  That would also be a true statement...but it's MORE accurate to specifically refer to UC Riverside and UC Irvine - the egregous violators.  Since this is a UCR article, it is appropriate just to mention UCR.  In fact, it was ONLY these two schools that completely failed to compile stats for 10 years!!  The other campuses just did an "imperfect job."  Therefore, it would actually be misleading (yet still not a false statement)to group ALL UC's into the same category, since it was just UCR/UCI that just negligently ignored their duty.  It's painfully obvious why your revision is not the best one. UCRGrad 15:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet, your statement seems more inaccurate than mine since the article is about sex crimes, not hate crimes (as you make it seem like in the article), and was for crimes reported in 2000 (not the more recent statistics that are cited in the article). Therefore, I'm going to ask you to "please do not make changes without carefully reading the corresponding reference. Otherwise, you risk compromising the accuracy of the article", because "it's painfully obvious why your revision is not the best one."--WHS 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, you are incorrect once again. The article specifically reveals a FAILURE of UC RIVERSIDE to collect Clery Act crime statistics for an ENTIRE DECADE.  HATE CRIMES are Clery-Act reportable crimes.  I'll let you figure out what this means.  To reiterate, please do not make changes without carefully understanding the corresponding reference. UCRGrad 00:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not incorrect again. While hate crimes are Clery-Act reportable, the article is specifically talking about sex crimes. So, "to reiterate, please do not make changes without carefully understanding the corresponding reference." Find me a citation that says UCR has failed to report hate crimes, not sex crimes, and I'll change my view. Thanks. --WHS 03:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reference clearly states: "Nowhere in the UC system are Clery violations so pronounced as at UC Riverside and UC Irvine...Over the last 10 years neither of the two schools compiled any Clery statistics." It is undisputed that hate crimes are specifically reported under the Clery Act.  Therefore, the absence of Clery Act reporting equates to underreporting of HATE CRIME.  I'll further add that the the article specifically mentions MISCLASSIFICATION of a hate crime as a non-hatecrime by UC Riverside.  The sentence is perfectly referenced, and there is no dispute whatsoever. UCRGrad 04:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reference states what you said, but if you had read the article (something you have numerous times falsely accused me of not doing), you'd clearly see that it was in reference to sex crimes. What you're doing is inferring something that was never mentioned. As far as the misclassification, again, it was over sex crimes, not hate crimes as you are saying. If I'm wrong, please quote the specific passage in the article.--WHS 05:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And by the way, I've proposed a medium between our two versions and edited the article accordingly to relect. Insert-Belltower reverted it, but I've changed it back and would like to see your opinion on it. This is my attempt at a compromise.--WHS 03:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already explained why your version is NOT APPROPRIATE here. It's not a matter of compromise, it's a matter of you making a change that compromises the accuracy of precision of the statement. I'll copy/paste it again so that you cannot get away without responding to my reasoning specifically and without generalizing: The preferable revision is one that is MORE accurate, MORE relevant, and BETTER reflects the data in the citation.  For instance, we could change the line to "Some schools in California failed to report..."  That would also be a true statement...but it's MORE accurate to specifically refer to UC Riverside and UC Irvine - the egregous violators.  Since this is a UCR article, it is appropriate just to mention UCR.  In fact, it was ONLY these two schools that completely failed to compile stats for 10 years!!  The other campuses just did an "imperfect job."  Therefore, it would actually be misleading (yet still not a false statement)to group ALL UC's into the same category, since it was just UCR/UCI that just negligently ignored their duty.  It's painfully obvious why your revision is not the best one. UCRGrad 04:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How is it more accurate when my compromise included more correct information? I kept in the UCR reference and added information about the entire University of California as well. And accoring to you, it's more than fair to add comparisons to the rest of the UC. Or, if because "this is a UCR article, it is appropriate just to mention UCR" then let's do the same for Nobel Laureates. You can't have a double standard with these things. Furthermore, the information in the article is dated. I'm not going to revert again since I don't want to violate the 3RR (though it's clear you're not above doing that), however, "It's painfully obvious why your revision is not the best one." "thanks." --WHS 05:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

'''::::::::::Actually, upon re-reading the article, it looks like ONLY UCR and UCI failed to compile ANY Clery Act statistics. The other campuses underreported sex crimes ONLY. Thus, it is now FALSE to write that "the rest of the UC system" failed in its duty to compile detailed crime statistics - it was only UCR and UCI.''' UCRGrad 07:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, if you read the article, it's clear that the emphasis is on sex crimes. I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself. --WHS 08:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to re-read the WP policies again because nowhere does it state that references must "emphasize" the fact it supports. You might surprised to learn that the standard here is that a fact is verifiable.  Regardless of whether the "emphasis" of the reference was on sex crimes, it doesn't change the fact that it also VERIFIES the FACT that UCR failed to compile Clery Act statistics and violated federal law for TEN YEARS.  Therefore, your argument is irrelevant, irrespective of the number of times you repeat it. UCRGrad 01:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll re-read the WP policies, but you might want to employ common sense. The article you cited didn't say one thing about hate crimes, and is out of date on top of it, yet you're citing the article as a reason why hate crimes are underreported years later. You're not even addressing what I'm saying, you're just dismissing it. "Therefore, your argument is irrelevant, irrespective of the number of times you repeat it." Thanks. :) --WHS 03:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That was cute, reporting a 3RR violation when one didn't occur, as well as changing my addition again without addressing my argument. My version may not be agreed upon, despite being an attempt at comrpomise, but lest you forget, yours isn't either. Not only that, I've shown how the article on SEX CRIMES is irrelevant in a hate crime section, but you've chosen to ignore my argument as you often do. --WHS 07:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will no longer respond to arguments you make that contain patronizing remarks. Please refer to WP:civility.  If you would like me to address arguments that contain personal attacks, you will have to re-write them with the attacks removed.  In your above argument, you wrote "but you've chosen to ignore my argument as you often do" - that is a personal attack and it will no longer be tolerated (I've been very patient up to this point).  UCRGrad 07:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't have to, but I won't either. But when I stop responding to your patronizing statements, please don't say that "I've ceased discussing matters" or whatever. Furthermore, I don't see how saying that you ignored my argument as you often do is a personal attack. You have ignored my arguments repeatedly. I do thank you for your patience with me though. :) --WHS 08:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway, while I'm absoultely unsurprised that you believe I don't have an argument, others do. I'm not here for the UCRGrad Seal of Approval for my argument, so I can live with that.--WHS 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Patronizing statements, like the one above, really don't add to your argument, and just waste space in the TALK page. Thanks. UCRGrad 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But telling me I don't have an argument just because you don't agree with it isn't patronizing at all. --WHS 07:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have things confused. It is people in YOUR camp that tell ME I don't have an argument for the reason that they "simply don't agree."  In my case, I provide reasoned counter-arguments to support my case, and that is what I have done for you. Now you are welcome to address my counterarguments, or you can continue to make patronizing comments - up to you. UCRGrad 15:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Section break for convenience
Okay. So one side favors "UCR failed to report crime", but the other wants the article to say "UCR, as well as the rest of the UC system". UCRG and I-B do have a point that one other UC is anything but "the rest of the system". I suggest a compromise, in which we add the qualifier "along with UC Irvine". This adds needed context and enhances the accuracy of the statement, rather than detracting from it. I have made this change. szyslak (t, c,  e ) 08:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Szyslak's edit is fine with me.--WHS 08:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have problem with it now. There's a big difference in meaning between WHS's edit and Szsyslak's. Insert-Belltower 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's called: Szsyslak's edit was a) accurate and b) justified. I wish all editors could be as reasonable as him/her. UCRGrad 01:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll
I am listing this survey under WP:POLLS. This survey does not determine who "wins" or even what course of action this article may take. In constructing this survey, I have tried to identify specific areas and points in the article visitors to this page have either asserted were biased or irrelevant or defended as unbiased or relevant. This survey is designed as a means of gathering information on any existing points of consensus, and is not intended as a means of determining consensus on any specific areas or points of contention.--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Neutral POV of Article

 * The UCR article, in whole or in part, is biased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (I am providing my responses first as a format example.) Per my comments elsewhere.
 * I'm concurring with Amerique.--WHS 07:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For the most part, i agree that the article is biased. Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, definitely. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When I was looking over the article, I believe that there are some streaks of bias here and there that may be worked out easily, but nonetheless seemed to leave a bad taste in my mouth when I read over them (even after reading them over several times) as if the author were bitter about the University. (As I need to pick my wife up from work at the moment, I'll put my specific comments in the sections below later on tonight.) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree --ElKevbo 22:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree This article is biased, without a doubt. For every negative remark made, a site can be found showing a positive. Those positives are severely lacking. 66.214.118.69 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. UCR's strengths are left out or downplayed, and its weaknesses or what it lacks are highlighted. Many of the things emphasized as "weaknesses" are not weaknesses. The school has no Nobel prizewinners? How many schools do? The school has a low alumni giving rate? Alumni of UC and public universities in general do not give a lot to their alma maters. One student in a self-selecting sample of 47 thinks the school is an abomination? Why even mention this, unless you have an ax to grind against the school? Even little things, like noting that the school doesn't have a football team, evidences bias. It would be more appropriate to point out the teams that the school does have. Also, some of the strengths of the University of California as a whole -- of which UCR is a respected part -- should be pointed out to add balance to the article. The article, as it stands, is a good example of the fallacy of special pleading -- telling only one side of the story, in this case the negative side.starkt 13:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Although Riverside has many problems, the article portrays Riverside in an extremely negative light, in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.  As I have said before, I dislike UCRGrad's tendency to emphasize deficits which UCR shares with practically every other university in the United States.  It is like saying in an article about a rock star that he or she was never trained in opera or saying that a well-known lawyer is not very good at baseball.  Though such statements may be true, the ubiquity of their application makes them non-notable. --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Despite UCRGrad's assertions to the contrary, there is an obvious bias in the language of the article, with any positive facts being downplayed by negative statistics.  It also does not explain any of the rapid expansion which is happening within UCR and the surrounding area. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. The article leaves a very bad impression of UCR. Mcgm 20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The UCR article, in whole or in part, is unbiased.


 * Definitely not biased. Negative facts (i.e. admissions statistics, rankings, etc.) are conveyed as objectively as absolutely possible, and only important and necessary ones are included.  Some people have confused the mere presence of negative information with bias - it is not. UCRGrad 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The UCR article is not biased.Insert-Belltower 03:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Admissions

 * The Admissions section, as currently worded, is biased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to the information in principle, but think it can be worded more in a more neutral manner, per my comments elsewhere.
 * Again, I agree with Amerique. The information is fine, but the manner in which is written appears biased to me. --WHS 07:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 for college-level math and English -- 70% of entering students are not ready for calculus (requiring remedial coursework in pre-calculus), and 50%-60% are not able to read and write at the college-level (requiring remediation in English)". Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Overall, this section could use some gentle NPOV work. The 70%/calculus claim should go--UC doesn't even require calculus to graduate AFAIK. It makes as much sense as, say, "87% of incoming freshmen can't solve differential equations". I never took a day of calculus, and I have a perfectly valid UC Santa Cruz degree. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree I think the dramatically over-long section presents facts which could be shortened by stating that UCR practices an open admissions policy. It appears that the statistics have been selected and included to present only one side of the open admissions issue with complete disregard for the positive aspects of open admissions.  --ElKevbo 22:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with above, especially Szyslak, it's written poorly. 66.214.118.69 03:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Pointing out that UCR students have the lowest academic qualifications of UC applicants is a slam on the school that really tells you nothing other than that the author has something against the school. UC applicants as a whole are a select group, and the university has minimum standards that all applicants must satisfy. An objective, non-POV approach would be simply to direct readers to UCR admissions statistics if they are interested. starkt 13:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Agree While the facts about the average students' math and reading/writing abilities are true, I don't think it can be phrased in a way that can maintain a NPOV tone. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Admissions section, as currently worded, is unbiased.


 * This section cannot be worded any more objectively without compromising its accuracy. It has already been subject to months of scrutiny, and this has been the best compromise so far. UCRGrad 01:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While this section may not paint an entirely rosy picture of UCR, that is not the job of an encyclopedia. I believe this section is unbiased.  SoCalAlum 18:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This section is not biased. I concur with UCRGrad's observations.Insert-Belltower 03:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. While this section appears to be rather negative, I believe the comparisons to other UC campuses are fair in light of the fact that the UC system shares a common application.--Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Rankings and Distinctions

 * The Rankings and Distinctions section, as currently worded, is biased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to the information in principle, but think it can be worded more in a more neutral manner, per my comments elsewhere.
 * Phrases such as "are rated high enough to even be ranked" constitute a bias in my opinion.--WHS 07:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with WHS on this one. Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very biased, per WHS. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree per WHS. --ElKevbo 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with WHS. 66.214.118.69 03:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with WHS. starkt 13:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Most universities don't have a graduate school mentioned in the U.S. News and World Report graduate school rankings.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree. This is the section where bias is most obvious, as each positive fact is downplayed by several more negative ones that are emphasized through rhetoric. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Rankings and Distinctions section, as currently worded, is unbiased.


 * Again, this section cannot be worded any more objectively without compromising its accuracy! UCRGrad 01:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This section is not biased. The facts are presented in an objective and logical manner. 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Insert-Belltower 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[Note: preceding comment is unsigned and there doesn't seem to have been an edit to this page at that time. ???  --ElKevbo 22:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates

 * Information on the non-presence of Nobel Laureates on faculty is relevant to this article.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to mentioning this information, but think it can be worded in a more neutral manner, per my comments elswhere.
 * Several suggestions have been made as to how best to include the non-presence of nobel laureates on faculty, but all of them so far have attempted to "sugar-coat" this negative fact. It is perfectly acceptable in its current state, however. UCRGrad 01:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I don't really think that including this is necessary, but I actually buy into UCRGrad's argument that perhaps there is somewhat of an expectation that the schools in the UC system should have Nobel laureates on its faculty, and for UC Riverside not to have any is a bit notable. HOWEVER, perhaps we can rephrase this sentence like this: Although UC Riverside does not have any Nobel laureates presently on its faculty, for the past decade, has had the most American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) fellows in the nation. (just a suggestion, there might be better ways to convey this information).  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with the current language. Insert-Belltower 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Information on the non-presence of Nobel Laureates on faculty is irrelevant to this article.


 * Personally I don't feel it is necessary to mention it as many other universities (UC included) don't have Nobel Laureates on their faculty. --WHS 07:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant that UCR doesn't have Nobel laureates. Neither does UC Santa Cruz, and its article doesn't make that claim. What's relevant is if a school does have Nobel laureates, not that it doesn't. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree As discussed several months ago, this is a non-fact whose relevance to this or any other university article has not been established. Furthermore, what happened to the line that mentioned the recent Nobel laureate who is associated (graduated from, worked at, taught at, I don't remember...) that was here several months ago?  --ElKevbo 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Szyslak and ElKevbo. 66.214.118.69 03:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Szyslak. It is notable when a school has Nobel prize winners, not notable when a school doesn't have them. I myself don't have $10 million, but I don't think that fact is a noteworthy fact about me. starkt 13:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. For all the reasons stated above.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is a non-fact and further contributes to the negative tone of the article. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Retention, Recruitment, and Alumni

 * This section, as currently worded, is biased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to mentioning this information, but think it can be worded in a more neutral manner.
 * Again, I am going to agree with Amerique on this matter.--WHS 07:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Amerique and WHS on this one. Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Not only is this section biased, it's poorly written and misleading. The very first sentence implies that an 85% freshmen retention rate is poor when that is about 10% higher than the national average.  The second sentence states that UCR is targeting home schooled students "in order to attract more competitive applicants" when the referenced article is really discussing UCR changing its application process to permit these students to demonstrate their aptitude and ability (since they are lacking many of the traditional records and indicators that non-home schooled students often possess).  In addition, there are other problems with this section, one of which is specifically addressed below.  --ElKevbo 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Word for word with ElKevbo. 66.214.118.69 03:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with ElKevbo. starkt 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree and I don't think this section should be here at all. As a sidenote, I think it's relevant to point out that only the author of these changes and Insert-Belltower assert a lack of bias throughout. And the fact that the former's username is UCRGrad is something I feel cannot be overlooked. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This section, as currently worded, is unbiased.


 * This section is worded very objectively, even though it does contain negative information about UCR. UCRGrad 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with UCRGrad's comments that this section is not biased.Insert-Belltower 03:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

StudentsReview.com

 * Information from StudentsReview.com, specificly the "abomination to higher education" quote, is relevant to the article.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to the information in principle, but think a better quote can be chosen.
 * The quote is concise, to the point, and well-written. UCRGrad 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The quotation, in the context of the statistic, is representative and therefore appropriate as is. Insert-Belltower 03:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Information from StudentsReview.com, specificly the "abomination to higher education" quote, is irrelevant to the article.


 * If a quote from the site is to be added, it should be one that reflects multiple points of view, not just an extreme one.--WHS 07:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * --Amerique 14:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I agree with that, also.
 * I strongly oppose the inclusion of this quote. HOWEVER, if we must include a quote from studentsreview.com, it should be one that is more balanced and reflects many points of view.  so I agree with WHS and Amerique on this one.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The quote should go. Quotes from public review sites, like StudentsReview, RateMyProfessors, Epinions and Yahoo Reviews, have no place in a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. Personally I"m sure more than one UCR student thinks UCR is indeed an abominstion to higher education. But there are plenty who think the same of Harvard, Oxford, Berkeley and Hollywood Upstairs Medical College. It's just a random opinion from a random person. Let's say I drove down to UCR with a tape recorder and stopped some students in the street. If one of them told me UCR was "an abomination to higher education", and I tried to put it in the article, who would argue that the quote was appropriate? Using a quote from a public review site has the same effect. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree This anonymous, unverifiable quote needs to go. --ElKevbo 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Right along with Szyslak. These websites are not good sources of information. And to make a contrast, look at the reviews for tons of other UC schools. They are ALL mostly negative... obviously from disgruntled students, which exist at every school, everywhere. Not to mention, UCR has better ratings than UCSD and several other UC's on that site, alone. SO, if you're going to use terrible sources... at least do it fairly. Again, this is just another nail in the coffin and goes to show how terribly biased this page has become. Good thing people don't take it seriously. 66.214.118.69 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with 66.214.118.69. starkt 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree that the quote is irrelevant. Furthermore, I do not think we should be relying on unreliable Web sources (essentially not much better than a blog).  If Riverside is so bad there should be plenty of decent newspaper articles quoting its students complaining about it.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree As I said, the whole section should go. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Alumni Giving Rate

 * Information on the alumni giving rate, as currently worded, is relevant to the article.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to mentioning this information, but think it can be worded in a more neutral manner.
 * Obviously, it goes without saying that information on the alumni giving rate *IS* relevant to an article about a university, which graduates thousands of alumni each year. UCRGrad 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely support keeping this information in the article with its current wording.Insert-Belltower 03:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem here. --WHS 07:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Information on the alumni giving rate, as currently worded, is irrelevant to the article.


 * I strongly oppose the language in this one. I have made it clear to UCRGrad that in general, the UC schools (and indeed, state schools) have traditionally had very low alumni giving rates.  Although grads from private schools often mock state school grads b/c of this, there are many reasons why state schools historically do not have very high alumni giving rates.  I think this part of the article needs to be rephrased in a way as to explain that although UC Riverside has one of the lowest alumni giving rates in this country, traditionally, the UC schools as a whole have very low alumni giving rates.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Teknosoul on this one, with emphasis on "as currently worded". Some balancing context is needed for this claim. As Teknosoul pointed out, public universities tend to have low giving rates. In addition, a low giving rate isn't always a function of how happy students are, or how good their education was. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were a public university where most graduates become schoolteachers. (For anyone reading this talk page who doesn't know, you have to get a bachelor's degree and about a year of additional preparation to become a teacher, at least in California.) Teachers in the United States don't make much money, just under $40,000 for a first-year teacher in California, where the cost of living can get pretty high. Naturally, someone making that kind of money wouldn't give a huge amount of money to their school. I absolutely loved UC Santa Cruz, but I'm in no position to donate at the moment. And yes, I've chosen a career in teaching, and that's why. :-) szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree The statistics presented in this area do not really bother me but the way they are presented do. In particular, the leap from "low alumni giving" to "unhappy students" is original research unsupported by the references.  --ElKevbo 22:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Teknosoul02 is right. 66.214.118.69 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Pretty much every public university has a low giving rate -- partly because public universities are perceived as being supported by tax dollars and as not needing private contributions (in fact, most private universities receive tax dollars as well, in the form of government-funded research grants and student financial aid.) It is obvious that the author of this article went on a cherry picking expedition looking for every little bit of information he could find that would cast UCR in a negative light while ignoring or downplaying those things that would cast it in a positive light. The article as it stands is the true "abomination" -- an unconscionable slander against a decent school -- and I'm surprised that we are even having a discussion about this. starkt 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. I concur with starkt.  All UC campuses have serious problems with alumni giving rates because of their embarrassing customer service issues.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree The whole section should go. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Thomas Haider Program in Biomedical Sciences

 * This section, as currently worded, is biased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) The "have not always been successful" clause on the last sentence is the only issue I have with this section.
 * Agreeing once again. While it is absolutely true that potential med students from UCR may "have not always been successful", that applies to med students from every university in the country. --WHS 07:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence on this one, but WHS and Amerique summed it up best. Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Amerique, WHS and Teknosoul. Yes, it's 100% true that candidates for the Haider/UCLA program haven't always been successful applying to other medical school programs. It's absolutely irrelevant, though. I'm sure many students are also eligible to apply for a transfer to Johns Hopkins if they want. Or they can switch to pre-law and transfer to Berkeley or Harvard. I could go on and on. Does it matter how successful they'd be in such cases? The passage is nothing but personal POV. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree per Amerique and WHS. I further believe the placement of this article is a bit odd but that's a minor issue unrelated to this survey.  --ElKevbo 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% with Amerique and WHS. I think it has more to do with the individual than their source of undergraduate education, in this example. 66.214.118.69 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Getting into medical school is very difficult. It is not a noteworthy fact that some people don't make it. On the contrary, it would be odd if every single UCR applicant got accepted. At the very least, one would suspect grade-inflation. Or wonder how it was that every UCR applicant was able to get in when few if any schools have a 100% success rate. starkt 13:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree The "have not always been successful" part is a weasel term. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This section, as currently worded, is unbiased.


 * There is absolutely no bias in this section. Again, the mere mention of an important negative fact (that those not accepted to Thomas Haider have not always been successfull elsewhere) is 100% relevant!!! UCRGrad 02:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The information in this section is not biased. Insert-Belltower 03:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. As long as the information is true and can be verified, I see nothing wrong with noting that the biomedical program is housed in substandard facilities or that it has serious problems.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Enrollment

 * This section, as currently worded, is biased.


 * Agree In particular, the statement asserting that "financially, UCR has received sufficient funding to become a comprehensive university, but has lagged behind other UC schools with respect to growth in this area" is completely unsupported by references.  In fact, even if one could find two separate references supporting the two assertions made in that statement, linking them together as cause and effect would be original research.  This is also a very poorly written paragraph.  --ElKevbo 22:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. The funding comparison suggests that there is something wrong with a UC campus that has less funding than other UC campuses. There could be less funding because there are fewer students, fewer graduate students, fewer capital-intensive research programs, etc. This is just a slam against the school, given that no context is provided. starkt 14:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This section, as currently worded, is unbiased.


 * No bias detected at all. Sorry. UCRGrad 01:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I read absolutely no bias. Insert-Belltower 03:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that there is a bias here, but I think the whole Tidal Wave 2 thing either needs to be removed or explained. --WHS 07:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This part is fair. Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Siding with consensus upon reread. Still should be reorganized. Financial/endowment information should probably go in its own section.
 * No complaints. There should be some explanation of what Tidal Wave 2 is, but that's not an NPOV issue. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Not that bad, just explain what Tidal Wave 2 is.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Unlike the other changes, this section maintans a factual tone; however, the "Tidal Wave 2" needs to be removed or explained. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Diversity and hate crime

 * The hate crime information, as currently worded, is biased or irrelevant.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to mentioning the hate crime information in principle, but think it can be worded more in a more neutral manner.
 * The on campus hate crime statistics are relevant, but the ones from Riverside County in general absolutely are not. --WHS 07:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that this information is important, I think it needs to be phrased a bit more neutrally. Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not discuss on-campus hate crime. We need some comparison to other UCs and national campus hate crime statistics; that would help the reader understand any hate crime problems at UCR in proper context. There's no reason to discuss statistics from Riverside County in general. Remember, it's a big county. According to Google Local, it takes one hour to get from Riverside to Palm Springs, and almost three hours to get to the town of Blythe, near the Arizona border. Both towns lie within Riverside County and would be included in Riverside County crime statistics. Who is willing to argue that something that happens in Palm Springs or Blythe is relevant to UCR? By comparison, should the UC Santa Barbara article discuss hate crime in Santa Maria, which is an hour and a half away but lies in Santa Barbara County?  szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree There are comparitives used in this section ("frequent", "most recent") with no context provided. The jump from "failed in their crime reporting duties" to "crimes may be underreported" is not only biased but it's also original research; it's possible that crime may have stayed the same or declined.  And I don't really see the relevance of "the most recent crime" in an encyclopedia article.  --ElKevbo 23:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree What Szyslak said. 66.214.118.69 03:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. There is no reason to mention on or off-campus crime unless there is an unusual problem with it that has been reported in reputable media. The reason I say that is because universities have not provided reliable statistics on crimes against students, so there is no solid statistical basis for saying that one campus is worse than another in this respect. starkt 14:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. The hate crime information should be limited to the campus alone. Riverside County is huge.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Personally, I don't think this section is relevant at all and I would remove it, but I can understand the reasoning behind keeping it. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The hate crime information, as currently worded, is unbiased or relevant.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to mentioning the hate crime information in principle, but think it can be worded more in a more neutral manner.
 * The hate crime info is relevant and unbiased, as currently worded.Insert-Belltower 03:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The "909 Stigma"

 * The "909 Stigma" section, as currently worded, is relevant to the article.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to the section in principle, but think it can be worded in a more neutral manner, as is the mention in the Inland Empire article.
 * I don't see how you could change it without compromising the important information it contains about the 909 Stigma. If you read the references included, you will already find that the article "softens" up the harsh remarks made. UCRGrad 02:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you cannot separate a university from its environment the information presented here is very relevant.Insert-Belltower 03:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "909 Stigma" section, as currently worded, is irrelevant to the article.


 * I'm not buying the whole university is so tightly integrated with its environment that every negative aspect must be included thing. If so, where does it stop? Why not mention more of Southern California, or California, or perhaps the entire United States? Throwing things such as this in the article is reaching.--WHS 07:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Have to strongly agree with WHS here. This article is about presenting comprehensive and accurate information about the university itself, not propagating stereotypes like 909's "negative association with trailer parks, white supremacists, and cows."  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This whole section doesn't belong in the article. Cambridge, Massachusetts has a reputation as a "Communist" town among U.S. conservatives, who have dubbed it "The People's Republic of Cambridge". Should the Harvard article have a section called "The People's Republic of Cambridge stigma"? Some people think Santa Cruz, California, home of my alma mater, is full of dumb surfers. Should the UCSC article get a section titled "The dumb surfer stigma"? Where does it end? The 909 section is phony and irrelevant on its face. You could say the same thing about any university anywhere. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree per WHS and Szyslak. --ElKevbo 23:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with WHS and Szyslak. 66.214.118.69
 * Agree. I think you could reference the article on white supremacists -- I found it fascinating as a bit of "local color" -- without suggesting that they have anything to do with the UCR experience. They have less to do with that experience than the gangs in southeast San Diego have to do with nearby San Diego State University. And nobody at San Diego State, to my knowledge, is obsessing about the nearby gang problem. starkt 14:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with WHS and Szyslak. --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree it is 951 now. The footnote provided links to Urban Dictionary.  Overall, it reeks of original research. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Severe Air Pollution

 * The section on air pollution, as currently worded, is relevant to the article.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to the information in principle, but think it can be worded more in a more neutral manner.
 * Given that Riverside has the most pollution of ANY major city/county in the NATION (in most studies), I definitely think the section is RELEVANT. If anything, it should be expanded on! UCRGrad 01:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This information is important and I actually think that it is okay as is. Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a very important section to the acticle and it is not biased.Insert-Belltower 18:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have to disagree with WHS on this one. There's a significant difference between the 909 section and the air pollution section. Stereotypes about "white supremacists and cows" really have no bearing on UCR as a school, or on the student experience. But the air quality problem in Riverside does. It has very real effects on health and overall quality of life. I grew up in the heavily polluted San Fernando Valley. Believe me, it's no fun. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the only negative I agree on thus far, because it actually has reliable sources AND all the sources on this topic say the same thing AND they are not from disgruntled students who failed, just like at any other university. They are also not from websites such as urbandictionary.com and studentreview.com, which frankly, are a big joke. 66.214.118.69 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. I agree that UCR has a serious air pollution problem and that this seriously affects quality of life at the campus. --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The section on air pollution, as currently worded, is irrelevant to the article.


 * It's irrelevant, for much of the reasons I've cited for the 909 topic.--WHS 07:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The question is whether the section is irrelevant as currently worded. Yes, it is irrelevant as currently worded. Air pollution is a serious problem in Riverside, but it's not enough of a problem to merit lengthy treatment. It's not the university's "fault" that it is located in a polluted area. This article is about the university, not Riverside's air pollution. So, while the pollution should be mentioned and expanded upon somewhat, it shouldn't be discussed at length the way it is in this article. starkt 14:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Wasn't there a really good reference from a UCR document here at one time which discussed the smog problem? --ElKevbo 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Agree. Unlike the silly "909 Stigma" section, there's real, valid and concrete concerns here. However, the phrase about the pollution influencing administrative policy has got to go. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I said the same thing a few months ago and I *swear* there was a UCR document supporting that claim. Maybe I'm misrembering things but I don't know why I would misremember something odd like that...  --ElKevbo 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Athletics

 * This section, as currently worded, is biased.
 * Weak Agree "...it will likely never be restored" is crystal ball-ism; the rest of it is fine. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree starkt 08:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This section, as currently worded, is unbiased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Amerique.Insert-Belltower 03:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Concurring with the two above. --WHS 07:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This information is fair and neutral. Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No complaints. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's unbiased except for the football issue. --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Football team

 * Information on the current non-existance of a football program is relevant to this article.


 * It's ludicrous not to mention the absence of a FOOTBALL team at a Division I school. UCRGrad 01:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with UCRGrad's comments.Insert-Belltower 03:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While many Division I schools do not have football, including this fact in the article isn't a big deal to me. --WHS 07:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This information is fair, though maybe change "lacking" to simply "does not have a football team".
 * It's relevant to mention that UCR doesn't have a football team, as long as the article doesn't imply that it needs one, or is a lesser school because of it. But the way it's worded now isn't too bad. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree It had a football team, so I think it's important to mention it doesn't have one now. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Information on the current non-existance of a football program is irrelevant to this article.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Per my comments elsewhere.
 * Agree As discussed several months ago, this is non-noteable. According to the NCAA, there are 234 Division I institutions with a football team (i.e. Division IA and Division IAA).  There are 327 institutions in Division I.  Hence even in Division I, the largest and most well-funded programs, nearly a quarter of the institutions don't have a football team.  If you look at all members of the NCAA, 620 of the 1054 institutions have football teams.  Using the IPEDS Dataset Cutting Tool, we know that in 2004 (the most recent data available) there were 2,298 4-year non-profit accredited institutions in the US receiving federal aid (i.e. there may be a few more institutions not included in that count).  Is it really noteable that UCR "lacks" what over 40% of the NCAA and 70% of the 4-year non-profit institutions in the US "lack?"  I don't think so.  --ElKevbo 23:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with ElKevbo. So many other well-funded institutions don't have it. The only people who would even care are college football fans. 66.214.118.69 03:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with ElKevbo. starkt 14:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with ElKevbo. Many universities do not have football teams. --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

History

 * Information in the history section is relevant to this article.
 * -- I approve the the information, but I would prefer it to be more concise.Insert-Belltower 04:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm concurring with Insert-Belltower. While I undoubtedly appreciate the work Amerique has invested in the section, it seems a little long-winded to me. --WHS 07:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * --Amerique 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Well, I've never contested any changes to my contributions. Anyone is free to edit this section... however, as even at its current length it is still incomplete once it is "finished" or a reasonably complete summary of UCR history I will put the bulk of it into a sub-article and save the highlights for this article.
 * --The information is definitely relevant, but WAY TOO LONG. I don't think anybody's going to read the HISTORY section, when it takes up a third of the article.  It needs to be more concise, for sure. UCRGrad 16:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This part is pretty fair, though perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit. Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This section is very informative and comprehensive. A few minor details could be dispensed with; that would help make it more concise and manageable. Overall, few complaints here. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Could use some work, but generally pretty good and informative. --ElKevbo 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. starkt 14:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. The section is relevant but is currently too long.--Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree hard to argue otherwise. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Information in the history section is irrelevant to this article.

The Above Survey Data is NOT Admissable
While I appreciate everyone's contributions to the survey, I have to point out that the results are not reliable and generalizable, and are not valid for drawing conclusions. Fortunately, the survey does let us know where people stand on various sections of the article, so we need not waste time arguing over sections that nobody has problems with. Major flaws that preclude using survey results are as follows:


 * 1) The sample is not random. In fact, ALL parties who have responded so far are KNOWN to be partisaned.  For crying out loud, the person who WROTE the survey even submitted her own survey responses.  Her advocate submitted results.  In fact, in most (if not all cases), Amerique went to individual user pages and ASKED people to take the survey - obviously, she only recruited editors whom she knew would vote in her favor.  In order for us to understand how neutral third parties see the article, ALL samples that are derived from "interested parties" should be eliminated (especially the anonymous IP user who has already vandalized this article several times).
 * 2) The survey is not BLINDED. It goes without saying that if people can read how others have voted, it influences their own opinions.  It also didn't help that Amerique provided a "sample vote" in her favor to kick things off.
 * 3) The survey questions "lead" the respondent to answer in Amerique's favor. That is, by asking whether or not a section is biased, it favors the affirmative-response.  The reason is that even if a respondant felt that there was perhaps one single word that made a segment biased, he/she would respond in the "biased" area because there is no option for a middle-ground.  That is, scale of 0-5 (0 = unbiased, 5=very biased).  Thus, the survey questions are constructed such that it favors the affirmative-respons (in this case, that a section is biased or irrelevant).
 * 4) There is no mechanism by which we can ensure there has been no "double-voting." That is, we cannot guarantee that there are no sockpuppets in Amerique's camp.  This is especially relevant, since one of the voters came from an anonymous IP address.
 * 5) The sample size is too small. Given that we have less than ten respondants and binary responses (agree/disagree), we would require far more data to conduct any type of statistical test.  In the absence of statistical analysis, a survey is not valid for drawing conclusions.

These are all grounds for dismissing survey results. I trust that those of you who have scientific training are aware of these fatal flaws and will concede this point. I also trust that those of you who do not will either learn about this subject or refrain from commenting. Thanks. UCRGrad 03:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's something of a straw poll and I'm sure that although you disagree with the views being expressed no one views it as scientific or binding. It's merely a tool to help get outside opinion and compare/contrast that with the opinions of some editors who have worked on or followed this article for some time.  --ElKevbo 12:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with ElKevbo. It's impossible and unreasonable to expect pure scientific correctness in a Wikipedia survey. If we held anything to that standard, nothing would get done around here. In addition, because the survey is not intended to be binding in any way, there's nothing to "admit" or "dismiss". szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated previously, the only useful data the survey provides is the ability for people to state their opinions about certain sections of the article and to allow us to avoid discussing areas that are not in contention. As the survey stands, it is not possible to conclude things like "most people would find XYZ section biased," or something ridiculous like "based on the survey, XYZ section IS biased."  This is what I mean. UCRGrad 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course the survey data is "admissible" as a casual indication of what interested people think. The opinions given and their reasonableness or lack thereof are what should count. I hope that all of this can be submitted to some kind of arbitration so that we can finally get a decent article on UCR. starkt 14:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UCGrad, the purpose of this straw poll is to get an idea of what everybody thinks of this UCR article. I think it represents a very strong indication that most, if not all, other wiki users agree that the article itself is very much biased against Riverside.  Honestly, I see this article as nothing more than a subtle slam of Riverside.  I understand your need to present information about Riverside and I will stipulate that Riverside does not have the best academic reputation in California.  but this article itself--which you have written and edited most of--is very one-sided and paints Riverside in a very ugly light.  Most of us are willing to work things out and make this article more neutral and objectie, but you have to play your part and be willing to listen, and maybe even put aside your own emotions and perhaps come to some kinda compromise.  Best, Teknosoul02 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Teknosoul, the survey does nothing of what you speak of. The methodology is so severely compromised that it is not possible to "get an idea of what everybody thinks" for the reasons outlined very carefully above.  At most, the survey allows a skewed sample of individuals who are already against the article to express their dissatisfaction with certain areas of the article.  As I have stated before, I am always willing to discuss the article in a reasonable manner.  If you can provide valid justifications for your proposed changes and address counterarguments sufficiently, then of course we can all agree to changes!  UCRGrad 03:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What I find hilarious about this obsession with consensus is that you and I-B are the only people who are agreeing with keeping the article as is to begin with! Danny Lilithborne 03:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)