Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:22, 18 April 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives
Archive 1

NPOV editing

As User:UCRGrad reverted all of my changes, calling the reasons "unintelligible", I have reinstated some and will explain in detail. (Removed text in bold.)

• "Housing is available to all students for their first year, though a large proportion choose to drive home on the weekends to escape, thus impacting development of campus life." Saying that students leave to escpae is pure speculation. Likewise, the effect of commuting on campus life is speculation.
• "Not surprisingly, UC Riverside ranked #12 nationwide..." Words like "not surprisingly" or "naturall" are words to avoid.
• "...Riverside air is so toxic that it can damage lungs in kids." "So toxic" is a little sensationalist for an encyclopedia article, and doesn't really change the meaning. I also changed "kids" to "children", which sounds more encyclopedic.
• "'Despite this, the use of gasmasks is not prevalent." Do I really have to explain this?
• "The brown haze seen in the background is quite common." This part of the caption adds little, and is difficult to verify aside from firsthand accounts.
• Regarding the 'Student Opinions' section: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox.

Hope that helps. Deltabeignet 06:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your changes. For the record, I was NOT the individual who made those additions, with the following exceptions: 1) I don't have a problem with changing the wording of "not surprisingly," but I wanted to make a logical connection between UCR's #12 rank for unhappy students and the rest of the paragraph, and to make things flow. 2) Changing "kids" to "children" actually sounds better. Thanks. (everything else, I didn't add)

UCRGrad

Dear Deltabeignet,

I appreciate your insights and I thank you for your input. --I will try to find more supporting data with regards to the impact that commuting has on the campus.

Insert-Belltower

• Thanks for the kind words. Here are some more explanations for recent edits:
  • "...worst selectivity rank..." to "is the least selective" I'm not too committed to this change, but I find that selectivity can be a good or bad thing, depending on point of view.
  • "which are all indicators of reputation and prestige." It's usually best to let readers draw their own conclusions.
  • "But overall, UCR has not had favorable reports regarding teaching quality." This has been one of our most contested sentences. It's very difficult to accurately distill all the reviews UCR has received into a single positive or negative, and again, it's best to let readers draw their own conclusions.

Deltabeignet 03:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to Latest Additions by Citizeninus

To begin with, you introduced a lot of "opinion" statements and facts that were actually either partially incorrect or patently false. Please be careful not to do any of these things. Always check your sources before adding things you may not be sure about. I have reverted your changes except for the one addition that had a verifiable reference. Thanks. UCRGradUCRGrad

However, it is growing rapidly in reputation and rankings.

Actually, it’s the opposite. Each year, it’s new US News ranking drops lower and lower, and its total enrollment has fallen each year since 2003.

College of Engineering last year was ranked by US News at 68th, up by 13 spots one year earlier. This is impressive considering the fact that the college has been etablished only in 1990.

“This is impressive” is an opinion, not a verifiable fact. Please refer to the policies and guidelines before editing.

UCR's peer assessment score, the selectivity rank, and the ranking overall has improved and continue to improve rapidly,

Over time, these measures have always been the lowest of ANY UC. They are definitely stable and not “improving rapidly” (you just made that one up, I believe). Regardless, you need a source for that.

Most of its graduate programs ranking, like Engineering, is on rise..

Does US News actually state the program is “on the rise,” or is that your own conclusion or interpretation of the data?

The university is ranked at number 16, above Harvard, MIT and Stanford among the nation’s top 100 Most Unwired Campuses by Intel. Unwired College Campuses

Thank you for including a verifiable source this time. I am removing “Harvard, MIT, and Stanford” because it would be silly and arbitrary to list all 15 campuses that UCR beat out in being “Unwired.”

UC Riverside is a major research university and the quality of research done by faculty and scholars here is at par with the best anywhere.

That is 100% opinion and 0% verifiable fact. That is unacceptable on WIkipedia.

It has been assesed as "Research University with verh high research activity" in the 2005 Carnige Classification Initial release by the Carnegie Foundation.

I examined your source, a brief wikipedia article on the Carnegie Foundation, and I did not find ANY information to corroborate your fact. Please make sure that your references actually support your facts.

The total number of UCR faculty recognized with the distinction of AAAS fellows is now 129 as of 2005. UCR has lead the nation's universies for more than 5 years in the number of honorees elected.

Delete, no source.

This year (2006) it was at third place nationwide with 8 honorees. It has several national research centers in field of Engineering, Science, Environment, Humanities etc. Bourns College of Engineering afopened up its new nanofabrication Cleanroom facility.

Delete, no source.

It is now working on setting up a new Meterials Science and Engineering Department to be housed in new building.

Delete, no Source.

UC Riverside has formaly submitted a proposal for setting up its medical school. It already has few on-going programs in the field of Biomedical Sciences.

Did you read citation #11, where the newspaper reported specifically that there has been no formal proposal submitted to UC Regents since they’re still inviting people to have planning meetings!?? And I’m not sure what you mean by “ongoing programs in the field of Biomedical Sciences”…what does that mean? As someone who has considerable knowledge about that program at UCR, I can tell you that what you wrote doesn’t make any sense. Thanks.

UCRGradUCRGrad

'909' article really necessary?

this is demeaning

"The 909" is a very common way of referring to the area, and I think everybody (who lives in Riverside or Southern CA)already knows its associated stigma. I referenced another Misplaced Pages article on the Inland Empire (the name for the surrounding area), and did not add any new information that wasn't already mentioned in it. No article would be complete without mentioning this aspect of student life. The stigma is so strong that even the television show "The O.C." pokes fun at one of its characters from Chino, CA (also located in the Inland Empire) - this is also mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article on the Inland Empire, but I chose not to include it. I have included a verifiable fact, and to the best of my knowledge, it is an accurate reflection and fair addition to the article. ...and it's already information found in another Misplaced Pages article.

UCRGrad 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Dude, if it's so common, you should be easily able to cite an article or two about it. See the official policy on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. For research assistance, see Misplaced Pages:How to write a great article. Also, self-referencing citation within Misplaced Pages (that is, asserting the truthfulness of an article based upon the content of another article) is generally discouraged because of the risk of a self-referential loop (as in the Emperor's Old Clothes fairy tale) that may have nothing to do with reality. --Coolcaesar 21:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference is fine, and there is no self-referential loop present, as you seem to imply. Thanks. UCRGrad 03:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Native American History

It would be helpful to note that UC Riverside is the only school in the country to offer a PhD in Native American History. Some graduate schools offer an interdisplinary Native American Studies PhD that has faculty pooled from various disciplines (such as Ethnic Studies, Anthropology, English, Music, etc), but UC Riverside has History faculty who specialize in how Native Americans have been written into history.

Attention AWIKIPEDIAN, your ad hominem attacks are not only irrelevant, but they really don't contribute much here

Was:== 'UCRGrad' is NOT real Alumni ==

Can you please stop posting all this negative garbage about UCR? ALL UC's have negative things about them, but you CONSTANTLY continue to update and revert negative POVs in this article. I bet you did not even graduate from this school, or even a college in general. Even if you did, you have not made anything of yourself, because all you have time for is to continue to bash this school and all its alumni. Please refrain from your constant updates. You are NOT wanted in this community.

The above paragraph epitomizes the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem. Simply put, it is intellectually dishonest to discount an idea or statement based on who puts it forth. If a statement warrants attack, there should be something concrete about the statement itself (other than 'This was posted by user X') that you can point to and say, "This part is wrong." The mere fact that UCRGrad posts something does not automatically mean that it is 'negative garbage.' In many cases, the added material simply provides a more complete perspective that prospective students might value. Also, it is considered common courtesy to sign your edits on this page. Please do so in the future.164.67.226.126 05:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that above paragraph was written by AWIKIPEDIAN. I'm actually kinda of hurt that someone would refer to my contributions as "negative garbage." I've taken the time to carefully select facts and reference them in accordance with WP guidelines - most of what I've added was really easy to find. I just searched google and reputable publications. On the contrary, I have seen NO useful contributions from AWIKIPEDIAN. He just came over to this talk page and showered me with ad hominems, as another user pointed out - if anything, YOU are not wanted in this community. Misplaced Pages needs useful additions to its articles in order to maintain its high quality and authority. People like you who come in here and bash the contributions of others are not wanted. Please refrain from the personal attacks. Thank you in advance for your civility. UCRGrad 06:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

POV check

I probably don't need to explain this, but I will anyway. I've worked to remove some of the less NPOV material, but, as testified to elsewhere on this talk page, there's still a general feeling of bias. The POV check suits the situation well. Deltabeignet 05:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure the POV tag does not get removed

I'm sorry, but we've been through this NPOV business several times already, typically from a user who does NOT wish an accurate article to be produced about UC Riverside. There is no bias here. Both the positive and negative aspects of this campus should be reflected here. I realize that there are people who are sympathetic to UCR...they feel as though the university is 100% perfect, and it shocks them to see these published statistics. You may think very highly of the school reputation-wise, but unfortunately, VERIFIABLE SOURCES fail to agree with you, for instance. That's just the way it is. I wish there was some way I could make it better. If you can justify your changes, or demonstrate that a particular sentence introduces an actual negative bias, please feel free to discuss it here. Otherwise, have a nice day.

UCRGrad 06:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Since not everyone who's just jumped into this discussion has had the opportunity to wade through the voluminous discussions where numerous people have accused both you and the article of violating neutrality (which alone demands that the article be tagged with the POV-disclaimer, contrary to your constant removal of that tag and insistance that your POV is the be-all-end-all of neutrality), I'll provide a fairly obvious example why everything you have said above is quite simply, dishonest.

The very sources you have cited (US News & World Colleges 2006, Princeton Review) actually provide relatively positive reviews of UCR. Those very sources, on the VERY SAME pages where you cherry-picked your negative data, also says some good and neutral things about the school, and some things to put what is said in perspective. Again, all of that is cited from the very same sources you cited from. I added those (here marked in bold) for balance and completeness in this more neutral (and comprehensively cited) rewording of the "Academics" portion of the article:

For 2006, US News & World Report ranked the University of California, Riverside undergraduate program #85 out of 248 surveyed national universities and #37 out of 162 surveyed public national universities. UCR is listed amongst "Best Western Colleges" and "America's Best Value College" by Princeton Review. However, UCR does not fare quite as well in comparison to other campuses of the highly-ranked University of California system. Within the eight University of California undergraduate programs, UCR ranks first in acceptance rate (79%); third in percentage of full-time faculty (94%); fourth in student-to-faculty ratio (18:1); sixth in faculty resources; seventh in actual graduation rate (71%); and last in average freshman retention rate (85%), peer assessment, selectivity, financial resources, and alumni giving (statistics circa 2004). UCR is also listed by Princeton Review amongst colleges in which "Professors Get Low Marks ," "Professors Make Themselves Scarce," and "Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses."

Despite categorization by US News & World Report as "More Selective" amongst national universities, UCR is the least selective amongst campuses of the University of California and has a relatively high acceptance rate (79%) and a relatively low average GPA/SAT (3.48 and 1074, respectively) for incoming freshmen. Historically, all UC-eligible high school seniors in California (defined as belonging to the top 12.5% of their graduating class) were automatically offered admission to the Riverside campus.

Today, UCR provides 78 majors and 45 minors, 50 Master's degree programs, and 38 Ph.D programs. It is the only UC campus to offer an undergraduate degree in creative writing and, along with the Berkeley campus, one of only two UCs to offer an undergraduate degree in Business Administration.

The Thomas Haider Program in Biomedical Sciences offers a joint medical degree program with UCLA. The first two years of medical instruction are taught at the UCR campus. Third and fourth year clerkships are conducted at UCLA and its affiliated hospitals along with the rest of the UCLA medical school class. Students admitted in the program receive a B.S. in Biomedical Sciences from UCR and an MD degree from the UCLA School of Medicine. In the past, the UCLA program was only offered to biomedical science majors, but effective 2002, all qualified majors may apply to the program during their senior year. Up to twenty-four of each year's applicants are chosen to attend medical school at UCR and UCLA. Students not selected are still eligible to apply to other medical schools.

UCR's library system is divided into four depositories. The Tomás Rivera Library is the largest depository and houses the general collection, supporting business, education, humanities, fine arts, social sciences. It also houses the special collections and serves as a depository for government publications and California state documents. The Science Library houses collections to support physical sciences, natural and agricultural sciences, biomedical sciences, and engineering and computer science. The Music Library houses some 12,000 LP records, 4,000 CDs and 70,000 scores. The Media Library houses films, audio and video cassettes, video discs, and other media formats. Of note, UCR is host to the world's largest academic collection of Star Trek material, and houses the 80,000 volume Eaton Collection of science fiction, horror, fantasy, and utopian literature - the world's largest such compilation available to the general public.

Recently, the university has attempted to institute new instructional technologies, such as online discussion groups.

UCR is also a primary partner in the Riverside Regional Technology Park, which also includes the City of Riverside, the County of Riverside, and various private industry members. The park is intended to assist entrepreneurs in developing new products and help move UCR discoveries into the marketplace.

You immediately reverted it back to your version (with only the negative parts of the sources' commentary), and then accused me of introducing a bias (!) to the article. See the reversion and comments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=University_of_California%2C_Riverside&diff=46320387&oldid=46319076

At the risk of violating a Misplaced Pages policy, I will yet again accuse you of embarking on a systematic campaign to maintain your own biased point-of-view in an article through 1) selective presentation/exclusion of information and 2) speculation/original research/misrepresentation (neutral reader: you need to go back through the discussion to find this debate).

Neutral readers, I highly suggest examination of both discussion and editing history of the article to see for yourself what the situation here really is. NPOV dispute tag added this edit.

--DtEW 09:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Neutral readers, Please scroll up in the talk page for a list of DtEW's civility violations - He is very difficult to deal with, and he is not playing fairly. This time, he has taken selective quotes, and accused me of a "systematic campaign" to maintain a "biased POV" through my apparent "speculation/original research." DtEW has tried everything to remove all of the negative facts from this article, despite my pleas that it should the information should be balanced - he has even tried criticizing citations, for which I have found appropriate references for almost all, and removed statements where I could not find good ones (verifiability, not truth is the standard here). If you read through this article, you would find that there is nothing untrue, nothing that isn't verifiable, and there is absolutely NO biase. It's "just the facts, m'am." UCRGrad 12:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Regarding my recent changes -- it should be quite apparent at this point that the neutrality of this article is most definately under dispute. I rv'd to a version that omitted the "UC Rejects" comment (not relevant -- unless you intend on mentioning "University of Spoiled Children" in the USC article, to say nothing of every other backronym?) and the "909" paragraph (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information). 71.104.154.217 23:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"UC Rejects" has been discussed already in TALK. If you do not address the points ALREADY, then it shows that you are just trying to "censor" the article rather than make a reasonable contribution. I, and others, will REVERT without hesitation.

With regard to the neutrality of the article, there is absolutely no problem with its neutrality. The problem is that there are people here with clear and evident affiliations or vested interests in UCR, and they are attempting to delete ALL negative references for their own selfish interests, rather than create a balanced and accurate article. Just because negative information is provided, does NOT mean that an article is not neutral. People need to honestly realize this before they make these kneejerk changes to the article.

UCRGrad 00:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT ACCUSATIONS OF BIAS

Dear readers and fellow editors, It has been brought to my attention that there have been concerns of bias in this article - however, more accurately, there is a concern that there is not a "Neutral Point of View," because that is specifically the standard set by Wiki. Bear in mind that NPOV implies that ALL viewpoints are represented. In this case, both the positive and negative aspects of UC Riverside should be presented.

Recently, people have erroneously confused "presentation of negative facts" with "bias." Readers have been mortified to read the low scores and rankings in US News, and have accused me and others of having a non-neutral point of view. The incorrectly held belief is that when UCR's shortcomings are mentioned, it equates to bias. This is simply not true. A neutral point of view implies that there is a BALANCE of facts, both good and bad. That is, it is NECESSARY to include statistics that may not shed the best light on UC Riverside.

Furthermore, just because 3-4 individuals adamantly claim that the article is not neutral, does NOT mean that the article is indeed not neutral. Bear in mind that nearly all of their complaints have been geared towards removing facts and statistics that do not promote UCR's image. None of them have truly addressed the issue of BIAS, just the presence of facts that they perceive as negative. Unfortunately, it is grossly insufficient to demand that carefully worded and referenced facts be removed without even a haphazard explanation of why their is bias. In reality, there really is NO BIAS, and again, people with vested interests in promoting UCR's image wish only for "the good" to be presented, at the expense of having BOTH SIDES presented in a balanced fashion.

If I and others do not read an adequate explanation of why there is bias, I guarantee there will be an active movement to have NPOV removed. It's only fair that way. It doesn't make any sense to place an NPOV flag, but have an adequate explanation why. Thank you.

UCRGrad 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

BIAS

"Look at the entries for the rest of the UCs, none of them have sections about nicknames or rumorss. Where is UCSBs mention of STDs or alcoholism? UC Merced was formed last year, and there is nothing negative? Yeah, I believe that."

I have already addressed this concern previously. Other UC articles are NOT a benchmark for which a college article is to be based on. It is irrelevant what is in other UC articles. Furthermore, there are less negative aspects of the other UC's to begin with - naturally, I would expect more negative aspects to be included in a UCR article. UC Merced is too new to have useful data for. UCRGrad 04:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

"Last time I checked, you weren't a moderator of any sort. You have just as much right to remove or revert as I do. I will continue to delete unsupported or out of context remarks."

You do NOT have the right to revert if you do so maliciously and without explanation like you have been doing up to now. Kudos to you for rising above that level. UCRGrad 04:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

For instance, the remark about "typical building" is not only unsupportive, its just plain wrong. The picture portrays a construction site and THE CORNER OF A SINGLE BUILDING. Not only is the conclusion wrong to begin with, it's not even reasonable to make based on the picture.

There are buildings to the left, right, and in the background, and these buildings are the standard architecture found on the UCR campus. Just because there are one or two newer buildings on campus doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the campus is old, and the photo represents that. UCRGrad 04:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

"The News and Review stats used heavily in the article to portray the school negativily, were in reality accompanied by overwhelmingly positive ones in the magazine." UCRGrad 04:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

I actually didn't run into many "overwhelmingly positive" facts about UCR in US News and World Report. Perhaps you can share. All of the MAJOR determinants and indicators of a college were included in this article. Minor ones were not. UCRGrad 04:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Words like "despite" "tier" "surpringly" "lagged" are subjective words that clearly indicate a bias.

- "Despite" is used to maintain the flow of the paragraph. - "Tier" has an objective definition, and it refers to a three-level categorization. The term "tier" is VERY COMMONLY used when discussing ranking, data with lists, etc. There is absolutely no inherent bias in this word. - "Surprisingly" indicates data that is not consistent with what is expected. There's no inherent bias in this word either.

HOWEVER, USE OF CERTAIN WORDS THAT HAVE QUESTIONABLE ASSOCIATION WITH BIAS DOES NOT JUSTIFY GLOBAL REMOVAL OF ENTIRE PARAGRAPHS OF REFERENCED FACTS.

"Not to mention full on sentences like "Environment is also a key factor that influences student life" that are opinion and not fact."

I did not write this line. If there is no reference, I have no problem with you deleting it. However, you were attempting to remove far more than this single line. That is NOT acceptable without appropriate justification.

"I have no problem with the posting of negative facts, the problem is they lack context and precedence. It returning rates and drop-out figures are nothing out of the ordinary, nor are they posted on any other UC wiki."

Again, comparing to other wiki articles is irrelevant, UNLESS you can demonstrate that another article is the designated BENCHMARK or MODEL article. If drop-out rates is not relevant information for a college, then how come US News and WOrld Report reports it for every school and uses it as part of its rankings?

"Since you have absolutely no authority other than that whichs you've proclaimed for yourself, I'm going to goahead and delete whatever I please...so long as its necessary."

Keep in mind that your above admission, that you will be deleting whatever you please without explanation or justification is good enough evidence to have your account suspended or restricted by admin here. UCRGrad 04:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

"I will continue to repost the NPOV,"

I will continue to remove the NPOV until you can provide an adequate justification. All I've heard so far is that you picked out 4 words that you thought added biased, and I explained how each one did not. You should feel free to edit lines here and there, but to sweepingly remove entire paragraphs without justification is 100% unacceptable by ANY standard.UCRGrad 04:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

"Just to throw in my two cents: While I agree with UCRGrad that Riverside has a poor reputation and compares poorly to other UC system schools as well as to all research universities in general, I agree with everyone else that such inherently inflammatory and controversial assertions should be based on proper citations (see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not). Citing to other Misplaced Pages pages is against Misplaced Pages policy because of the risk of creating self-referential citation loops with no connection to reality. "

Show me the specific line that says Wiki references are PROHIBITED. I understand that they are discouraged, but that is not grounds for removal by any means. UCRGrad 04:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

If you have a citation to a legitimate publication (e.g., the Press-Enterprise) which actually used the phrase "UC Rejects," please provide it. Otherwise, the phrase should go. While amusing, I have never heard it used to refer to UCR.

Of course, I'll concede that my own bias may have something to do with the fact that I have never visited the Riverside, Merced, or San Francisco campuses; I have visited 7 others.--Coolcaesar 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I think that the article has switched from one end of the pendulum to another in the span of a few months. If you read the information at the top of this talk page you'll find that UCR fans refused to even admit that UCR had a high acceptance rate and low SAT scores. While I appreciate UCRGrad's attempt to add balance, the article now looks like the opposite of it did a few months, with lots of negatives and virtually no positives. Calwatch 04:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with negative postings about the school. Its clear that UCRGrad hates the school, and is attempting to use an OBJECTIVE website to convince people to agree with him. He's doing the same thing on CollegeConfidential.com. They have no more authority than anyone else, and just because they're the loudest, doesn't make them right. 138.23.21.216 04:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding UCRGrad's claim that there is nothing wrong with Wiki references, actually, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability refers to information published by "reputable publishers" and "credible, third-party sources." Misplaced Pages itself is inherently unreliable because anyone can change it. If you do not understand the difference between information and a pointer or citation to a source of that information, please see Pointer. --Coolcaesar 01:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION: USER 138.23.21.216 IS A UC RIVERSIDE STUDENT WRITING FROM THE UCR DORMS

He clearly is not interested in making this a neutral article, but is obviously attempting to promote the school he goes to. He has no interest in a rational discussion in TALK, and has admitted that he is "going to goahead and delete whatever I please..." This is a call to all neutral parties to force him to use the TALK page as a medium for discussion, rather than arbitrary and malicious reverts. UCRGrad 04:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

"Just like you posted under the same name on another board that UCR is a "dumpster school" and were willing to convince anyone not to attend? The same one in which you admitted you were an "idiot" for attending? YOU ARE NOT A NEUTRAL PARTY EITHER MY FRIEND, SO LET'S DROP THE HYSTERICS."

Hhahahah. Yeah, I saw the posts you're talking about. I didn't think my name was that catchy, but even here, someone has chosen the name "UCRGraduate"...so who knows...Believe it or not, I'm not the ONLY person out there who might be familiar with some of the negative aspects of the school! UCRGrad 05:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

"Where I'm posting from doesn't matter any more than the fact that you once attended does. I have no interest in misleading people, I'd just like to dispell some myths---since I'm here, I have the opportunity to do so. 138.23.21.216 05:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)"

Nice try. You're clearly a UCR student with a clear motive to delete any negative references to your home school. What confuses me is how you systematically delete a lot of the objective data taken RIGHT OFF the article from US News...do you really think those facts aren't true, or do you just not want to believe them?

Home school? I've been here since Sept, my loyalty has yet to develop. The point is much of your information is slanted towards the opinion you want others to have. There is plenty of great stuff about the school, or people wouldn't attend.

thanks!

UCRGrad,

"while your efforts to state the "facts" should be applauded, we should all be reminded that wikipedia is used as a source of information. when people unfamiliar with the university reads an article such as the one you so dilligently moderate, one can only view the university in a negative light."

More importantly, I would hope that the article could accurately present the pertinent facts about the campus. It is truly up to the readers to make inferences. Academically, I think the portrayal of UCR is accurate and meets consensus among people familiar with colleges. UCRGrad 05:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

"clearly, when 5 of the 6 paragraphs in the academic section has a negative spin to it, there exists a bias. you can word your "data" or "statistics" any way you want"

Unfortunately, most of the data does not support the notion that UCR is a top university. I can't alter the data that exists, and if I were to twist them into being any more positive, it would be blatant misrepresentation. The data speaks for itself. I don't need to introduce anything else. UCRGrad 05:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

"but what remains is your personal views on the university. True, much of the information presented is factual, but paragraphs such as: Riverside is sometimes referred to as "The 909," which makes reference to the region's former primary area code but also carries an association with "white trash." Despite the 2004 prefix change to "951," the nickname has been maintained, out of indifference or ignorance. Riverside has also been named "The Valley of the Dirt People" by Kevin and Bean, two popular Los Angeles radio hosts. have absolutely NO merit in any educational publication."

I disagree. A fundamental part of campus life is the city is located in. Can you honestly say that you would consider a university without considering its location? Of course not!! Wouldn't a potential student of UCR want to know what the city's reputation was? OF COURSE!!!

<--- you're absolutely right. state the demographics. state the SES. state the climate. just don't quote a MORNING RADIO SHOW and present it as a fact.

THAT'S NOT THE f**ing POINT. This isn't a recruitment website, its simply a short blurb about the school. It's not a place for you to warn off potential students.

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF READING THIS THREAD. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR THAT UCR STUDENTS COME IN HERE AND WIPE OUT ALL THE BAD STUFF SO THEIR SCHOOL LOOKS GOOD. THAT IS SO IMMATURE. I MEAN, LOOK AT THIS PROFANITY ABOVE. I THINK ALL THE THINGS THEY WRITE ABOUT UCR AND ITS STUDENTS ARE TRUE. YOU GUYS REALLY ARE THE ARMPIT OF THE UC SYSTEM.

Then stop, go away. I'm leaving up tons of criticism--I'm ok with it, and realize that its not a flawless school--but some of it is just plain wrong. 138.23.21.216 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

YOU GUYS REALLY ARE UC RETARDS. I WOULDN'T EXPECT SUCH RETARDED BEHAVIOR FROM STUDENTS OF ANY OTHER UC SCHOOL. YOU'RE JUST REINFORCING THE VERY FACTS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO REMOVE. I HONESTLY JUST CAN'T GET OVER HOW MINDBOGGLINGLY RIDICULOUSLY STUPID YOU ARE. I MEAN, LOOK, I COUNTED THREE BUILDINGS IN THAT PHOTO, YET YOU CLAIMED THERE WERE NONE. YOU CLAIMED THE PHOTO WAS BIASED, YET SEVERAL PEOPLE HERE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT THERE IS LOTS OF CONSTRUCTION GOING ON ON CAMPUS. I MEAN, WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?

UCRGrad

"Hhahahah. Yeah, I saw the posts you're talking about. I didn't think my name was that catchy, but even here, someone has chosen the name "UCRGraduate"...so who knows...Believe it or not, I'm not the ONLY person out there who might be familiar with some of the negative aspects of the school!" UCRGrad 05:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

while i am aware of the stigma associated with attending UCR, i chose not to focus on the negative aspects of the school. although your experiences at UCR may have been less than desirable, it is not your duty (nor is this the proper forum) to discourage others from attending or others from further perpetuating the fallacies of the university. I'm sure your response to the preceding statement would be something to the effect of "i'm just presenting both sides and it's up to the reader . . . " The problem with your reasoning is that the negative side, as factual as it may be, heavily outweighs the positive. actually, replying or justifying deletions of YOUR article are clearly unnecessary. while you insist on providing justification for such actions, YOUR opinions seem to be the only one that matters. way to be impartial, buddy.

Questionable neutrality Statement Removed

No justification for this. -IB 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)~

Until...

Until the rest of the UC pages go into similar depths of negativity, some of the stats need to be deleted. This is an article about UCR, not UCR vs the other campuses. The level of seething negativity is unprecedented and clearly out of context. I'll request the lock come down to do so. 138.23.21.216 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Statistics should be deleted because you say so? Instead of removing 'negative' information to 'restore balance', why not add some facts that cast UCR in a more positive light? If the article is as slanted as you say, this should be easy. 164.67.226.126 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

An excellent point. A truly balanced article will have both positive and negative information. Insert-Belltower Insert-Belltower 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. There is absolutely NO reason to delete verifiable statistics just because something positive is not available. On the other hand, some of the conclusions made could be made more neutral. Calwatch 21:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no conclusions made in the article, only facts stated. -Insert-Belltower

POV tag

User:UCRGrad has repeatedly removed bias tags from the page. I quote Misplaced Pages:POV check:

For situations where you or other editors disagree on NPOV status, or need to reach consensus on neutrality, instead use the neutrality dispute template, {{POV}}, and explain the reasons on the talk page.

In order to ensure the POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification, it may be removed by anyone if they feel that the issue has been resolved. Please do not edit war over the use of this template. Instead, if you disagree with its removal, place the full neutrality dispute template on the page, explain your reasons on the talk page, and follow the regular NPOV dispute resolution process.

The question here is not whether the article is biased, but rather whether the neutrality is disputed. The fact that the neutrality is disputed is obvious from a quick scan of this talk page. Deltabeignet 22:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have NEVER removed a POV tag without explanation, and I have almost always provided a reasoned response in TALK. It's one thing to place the POV tag, but it's another to adequately explain why in TALK. What's to keep the UCR students from incessantly crying "NPOV" until the last negative statistic is removed? 71.198.58.193 01:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

A quick (or comprehensive) scan of the talk page will only reveal that two or three people genuinely have an issue with "neutrality," -- in AT LEAST one case, the individual is a UCR student, and in ALL cases, accuracy and neutrality was NOT the big concern: the big concern was the presence of negative material, period. 71.198.58.193UCRGrad

A POINT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE

Now that this article has been locked down, I want to emphasize the following statement that I posted earlier:

Recently, people have erroneously confused "presentation of negative facts" with "bias." Readers have been mortified to read the low scores and rankings in US News, and have accused me and others of having a non-neutral point of view. The incorrectly held belief is that when UCR's shortcomings are mentioned, it equates to bias. This is simply not true. A neutral point of view implies that there is a BALANCE of facts, both good and bad. That is, it is NECESSARY to include statistics that may not shed the best light on UC Riverside.

Furthermore, just because 3-4 individuals adamantly claim that the article is not neutral, does NOT mean that the article is indeed not neutral. Bear in mind that nearly all of their complaints have been geared towards removing facts and statistics that do not promote UCR's image. None of them have truly addressed the issue of BIAS, just the presence of facts that they perceive as negative. Unfortunately, it is grossly insufficient to demand that carefully worded and referenced facts be removed without even a haphazard explanation of why their is bias. In reality, there really is NO BIAS, and again, people with vested interests in promoting UCR's image wish only for "the good" to be presented, at the expense of having BOTH SIDES presented in a balanced fashion.

UCRGradUCRGrad

Homeschool admissions

The article incorrectly states that homeschool admissions were introduced to try to increase enrollments. But the homeschool admissions process was developed during the past two years, before enrollment drops occurred or were even foreseen. According to press releases, interviews with those who developed the program, and information provided at the homeschool admissions day last November, the program was established as a means to attract outstanding students to UCR, students presently heading to top private schools like Stanford and Ivy League schools. By being the first of the UCs to admit homeschoolers, UCR hopes to gain some competitive advantage over other UCs in attracting top students.

Interviews with those who developed the program are not verifiable information and fail WP:V. Information, such as handouts, given to individuals at the admission do qualify, if a source can be cited. I took the information directly from the newspaper article, and the North County Times is a legitimate daily newspaper that meets WP:V. Calwatch 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia entry should either state the officially listed reason, or not state any reason. It certainly should not take a guess at the reason based on circumstantial evidence ("enrollments dropped, and the program just started, so the program must be an attempt to increase enrollments" -- there is no evidence supporting that cause-and-effect presumption).

The official reason was stated in the newspaper article... to increase admissions of home schooled students. You are implying too much into the placement of the sentences, and drawing an unwarranted conclusion. Calwatch 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just one of dozens of problems with this article. The article should probably be completely rewritten, hopefully from an objective perspective.

Rewriting the article is not necessary, but it would be helpful to designate what problems you have with the article (and sign your comments). Calwatch 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you love how people are so confident that the article is "not objective," but they can't really explain why? Here's the reason: People who have ties with UCR don't think there should be ANY facts that shed a negative light on UCR - so therefore, ANY negative facts, no matter how true and verifiable they are, should be removed. But this is NOT the same thing as having a neutral point of view. A neutral point of view implies that GOOD AND BAD aspects are represented. Since there really is no bias or problems with neutrality, not even the UCR-sympathetics can come up with very good reasons why the NPOV should stand. UCRGrad 16:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

NPOV issues

What's the problem here? Aucaman 04:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there are a few UCR students and other people with a vested interest in promoting UC Riverside who want to delete all the true, but negative, statistics about their beloved campus, and replace it with cherry-topped sugar-coated statements. ...but the squeaky wheel gets the oil. None of them have really demonstrated specifically and without generalizing any actual major concerns with NPOV - but the fact that they reacted so strongly caused the NPOV to appear. As one user pointed out, this makes the UCR students seem more retarded that we thought, but I oh well. UCRGrad 16:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Which specific passages are we talking about? Aucaman 17:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the most recent addition that calls the school an abomination? They quote StudentsReview.com whose unreliability is proven on the front page, when it estimates the school's average ACT score is a 14. How can you honestly tell me that this is non-bias when it just quotes random negative comments from a messageboard? You can't even verify that these people aren't quoting themselves. It's clearly against the rules to cite non-verifiable sources.Of course they don't site the postive reviews like this one: "My overall take on the campus was a good one, the education I received I use everyday at my job. My roommate and I were hired before we graduated from UCR and both received a signing bonus along with a relocation package." This whole article is a sham and blackmark upon Misplaced Pages. TheRegicider 18:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Update

Okay no one has answered my question, so I'm going to remove the pov tag until someone steps up and says specifically what's wrong with the article as it stands right now. Which specific sections/passages are biased? I'm not taking sides here, but whoever puts in the dispute tag is responsible for giving an explanation of what's wrong with the article. I'm going to try to read and fix some stuff. Aucaman 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it.

1. Medical School Stuff: What students not selected for the Thomas Haider program do isn't exactly relevant. It's like saying "While most UCLA students qualify for great grad schools, some actually end up going to bad ones." The sole purpose of that remark is to make the school look bad. Lastly, the data doesn't even substantiate it. The link just sends you to mdapplicants.com, it doesn't actually show the statistics. Again, that's like putting nothing more than "The Bible" in a bibliography. Until the data is actually presented that stat is not verified.

2. Nicknames: The school's nickname is "Univeristy of Chinest Refugees?" Not only is that incredibily offensive, it's not even a nickname anyone uses. Show me where the UCSB wiki article mentions its nickname of "U Can Study Boozed" or "Univeristy of Casual Sex and Beer." IT DOESN'T. That's the fourth nickname that's been put up on this article, making it clear that the authors are just trying to come up with things that are offensive, not true.

3. US New and Review Stats: As of right now, a user has to pay to view them. Given certain patterns of dishonesty, how can we trust these are real?

4. StudentsReview.com: I posted this earlier, but I'll do it again. They quote StudentsReview.com whose unreliability is proven on the front page, when it estimates the school's average ACT score is a 14. How can you honestly tell me that this is non-bias when it just quotes random negative comments from a messageboard? You can't even verify that these people aren't quoting themselves. It's clearly against the rules to cite non-verifiable sources.Of course they don't site the postive reviews like this one: "My overall take on the campus was a good one, the education I received I use everyday at my job. My roommate and I were hired before we graduated from UCR and both received a signing bonus along with a relocation package."

The placement of this quote so clearly indicated bias it's not even funny. If we are going to get into the business of quoting random internet users, we must do it evenly. The opinion of a single unverifable poster? That cannot be consider NPOV.

5. UV Theater. It's used because of a "due to lower patronage by moviegoers"? Ummmm. That's just unnecessary negativity. ALL MOVIE THEATRES HAVE LOW PATRONAGE AT 9 IN THE MORNING. The author purposely uses that language to imply that there is something wrong with the theaters, when in reality, it's a great relationship all around. The lin adds NOTHING to the article except for further negativity and bias.

6. "Environment is also a key factor that influences student life." Great. Doesn't belond in an encyclopedia article. It's an opinion of the author and not a fact. It further contributes to this piece reading as an opinion not an entry of pure factual information. That section as a whole, is more relevant to an entry on Riverside and not the University itself.

"Environment is also a key factor that influences student life. The Riverside area is referred to as a “smog belt” because of its above-average level of air pollution. In a comparison by the National Campaign Against Dirty Air Power (2003), the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area was found to be the most polluted region based on year-round soot measurements when compared to other U.S. cities. In fact, the New England Journal of Medicine (2004) published results from a longitudinal study comparing pollution in southern California communities with lung health in children. Not only did the authors find that Riverside pollution levels were amongst the highest, but they also discovered that air in this region can damage childrens' lungs. . . The associated brown haze can be seen in the Carillon Tower photo below, where it obscures the bottom third of the sky."

Should be cut. It makes no mention of the school itself. Obviously there should be a link to the city of Riverside, or even a statement that says "The city of Riverside is know for high levels of smog." If the reader wants to investigate further, that's fine. You wouldn't read an article about "The Bush Doctrine" and find a large section about the disputed 2000 election.

7. Athletics, which I mentioned earliers: "Because of the commuter nature of the school, school spirit and enthusiasm for UC Riverside athletics is low, and attendance at these events (except promotional games) tends to be minimal." OPINION OPINION OPINION. Not only does the author make a subjective conclusion but they attempt to explain the cause as well--both are inappropriate in a non-biased article. And again, if we're are so worried about UCR's upwards and downwards trends, then I'm sure UCR Grad and InsertBellTower will have no problem adding that both the Women's Basketball and Soccer teams qualified for the Division 1 NCAA Tournament this yea--for the first time in the school's history. Which, aside from the prestige that provides, also guarentees more funding in the future for the athletics department.

Conclusion: As I have sufficently pointed out, there is plenty here of disputed neutrality. Just because the people behind the bais declare otherwise, doesn't make it so. Since a user would have to pay 14 dollars to get a copy of the News and Review article, it then becomes impossible to prove just how out-of-context the citations are. I have read the article, I just no longer have it. However, I can tell you that the tone was as a whole postive, would a respect magazine honestly put as school as negative as this article says in the top 85? I don't think so. As soon as I can edit again, I will do so. This article is a disgrace. It's biased and purposely negative. Certain people are using this page as a way to deter students from attending, because they had a bad experience. This is not the venue, it needs to stop. TheRegicider 20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay great, so you have justified the dispute tag. Could you put each of the concerns in different sections, so we can discuss them seperately? Thank. Aucaman 21:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

CHANGES NEEDED TO BE MADE TO ELIMINATE BIAS

ACADEMICS: What students not selected for the Thomas Haider program do isn't exactly relevant. It's like saying "While most UCLA students qualify for great grad schools, some actually end up going to bad ones." The sole purpose of that remark is to make the school look bad. Lastly, the data doesn't even substantiate it. The link just sends you to mdapplicants.com, it doesn't actually show the statistics. Again, that's like putting nothing more than "The Bible" in a bibliography. Until the data is actually presented that stat is not verified.

STUDENT LIFE: 1. The school's nickname is "Univeristy of Chinest Refugees?" Not only is that incredibily offensive, it's not even a nickname anyone uses. Show me where the UCSB wiki article mentions its nickname of "U Can Study Boozed" or "Univeristy of Casual Sex and Beer." IT DOESN'T. That's the fourth nickname that's been put up on this article, making it clear that the authors are just trying to come up with things that are offensive, not true.

2. US New and Review Stats: As of right now, a user has to pay to view them. Given certain patterns of dishonesty, how can we trust these are real?

3. StudentsReview.com: I posted this earlier, but I'll do it again. They quote StudentsReview.com whose unreliability is proven on the front page, when it estimates the school's average ACT score is a 14. How can you honestly tell me that this is non-bias when it just quotes random negative comments from a messageboard? You can't even verify that these people aren't quoting themselves. It's clearly against the rules to cite non-verifiable sources.Of course they don't site the postive reviews like this one: "My overall take on the campus was a good one, the education I received I use everyday at my job. My roommate and I were hired before we graduated from UCR and both received a signing bonus along with a relocation package." The placement of this quote so clearly indicated bias it's not even funny. If we are going to get into the business of quoting random internet users, we must do it evenly. The opinion of a single unverifable poster? That cannot be consider NPOV.

4. UV Theater. It's used because of a "due to lower patronage by moviegoers"? Ummmm. That's just unnecessary negativity. ALL MOVIE THEATRES HAVE LOW PATRONAGE AT 9 IN THE MORNING. The author purposely uses that language to imply that there is something wrong with the theaters, when in reality, it's a great relationship all around. The lin adds NOTHING to the article except for further negativity and bias.

5. "Environment is also a key factor that influences student life." Great. Doesn't belond in an encyclopedia article. It's an opinion of the author and not a fact. It further contributes to this piece reading as an opinion not an entry of pure factual information. That section as a whole, is more relevant to an entry on Riverside and not the University itself. "Environment is also a key factor that influences student life. The Riverside area is referred to as a “smog belt” because of its above-average level of air pollution. In a comparison by the National Campaign Against Dirty Air Power (2003), the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area was found to be the most polluted region based on year-round soot measurements when compared to other U.S. cities. In fact, the New England Journal of Medicine (2004) published results from a longitudinal study comparing pollution in southern California communities with lung health in children. Not only did the authors find that Riverside pollution levels were amongst the highest, but they also discovered that air in this region can damage childrens' lungs. . . The associated brown haze can be seen in the Carillon Tower photo below, where it obscures the bottom third of the sky." Should be cut. It makes no mention of the school itself. Obviously there should be a link to the city of Riverside, or even a statement that says "The city of Riverside is know for high levels of smog." If the reader wants to investigate further, that's fine. You wouldn't read an article about "The Bush Doctrine" and find a large section about the disputed 2000 election

ATHLETICS: Athletics, which I mentioned earliers: "Because of the commuter nature of the school, school spirit and enthusiasm for UC Riverside athletics is low, and attendance at these events (except promotional games) tends to be minimal." OPINION OPINION OPINION. Not only does the author make a subjective conclusion but they attempt to explain the cause as well--both are inappropriate in a non-biased article. And again, if we're are so worried about UCR's upwards and downwards trends, then I'm sure UCR Grad and InsertBellTower will have no problem adding that both the Women's Basketball and Soccer teams qualified for the Division 1 NCAA Tournament this yea--for the first time in the school's history. Which, aside from the prestige that provides, also guarentees more funding in the future for the athletics department.

Athletics

If we're are so worried about UCR's upwards and downwards trends, then I'm sure UCR Grad and InsertBellTower will have no problem adding that both the Women's Basketball and Soccer teams qualified for the Division 1 NCAA Tournament this yea--for the first time in the school's history. Which, aside from the prestige that provides, also guarentees more funding in the future for the athletics department.

By the way, the phrase "not well known" is entirely subjective and is a conclusion not subtantiated with facts.TheRegicider 20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

unsourced statements

I removed these statements just now:

1. Based on the fact that UCR was generally not the student's college of choice, UCR has earned the nickname "University of Cal Rejects."
2. these courses are actually taught in classrooms located in the basement of the Statistics building and in portable trailers

because statements like that really need to be cited, and I'm not sure any such citation exists in this case. Just because they're true doesn't make them OK to put in the article if they're not also verifiable. –Tifego _{01:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

Discussion of changes

Each concern has to be discussed seperately. Here they are. Aucaman 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank AUCAMAN for taking the time to objectively examine each portion of the article and honestly evaluate it. This is different from the wide sweeping generalizations I've read so far, and I want to take the time to respond. My responses will be in bold."

User:TheRegicider's concerns

Academics

What students not selected for the Thomas Haider program do isn't exactly relevant. It's like saying "While most UCLA students qualify for great grad schools, some actually end up going to bad ones." The sole purpose of that remark is to make the school look bad. Lastly, the data doesn't even substantiate it. The link just sends you to mdapplicants.com, it doesn't actually show the statistics. Again, that's like putting nothing more than "The Bible" in a bibliography. Until the data is actually presented that stat is not verified.

--Posted by Aucaman 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the statement is to simply convey facts, not to bringforth a bias viewpoint with the purpose of demeaning the school. Your bad parallel example regarding UCLA graduates fails because it puts emphasis on a negative point that could be made about ANY school, and if it was actually said in an article about UCLA, it would represent a bias. It is true that out of the total number of graduates of any school some will go to "bad ones." In contrast, the statement in the UCR article are appropriate because it is specific to that paricular program and group of students, thus it is an imporant and relevant point to make. We can work on the making the link more specific, if necessary. Insert-Belltower 02:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think AUCAMAN is familiar with the the important of med school admissions. The fact is, a proportion of science majors are actually premed. (non-science majors are usually out of touch with the premed thing) Every premed knows how difficult it is to get into medical school, and one of the important indicators they use is how well do premeds applying from their institution do. They look at where past graduates have gotten interviews at and where they ultimately were admitted to. Medschool admission is more competitive than law school, and it's much more stressful than college admissions. The reality is that UCR students don't fare well when applying to med school. There is no bias. The best source available (so far) is from MDApplicants.com which allows a simple search of UCR applicant data, but it does not permit linking to these results. However, wikipedia requires VERIFIABILITY, not necessary "LINKABILITY." So this information stands. AND yes, it's pertinent. If only 24 students are selected for UCR/UCLA, then it BEGS the question, "what happens to the hundreds of other premeds!!?" UCRGrad 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Why are you bold-facing this? And I did not originally write these. I'm quoting User:TheRegicider's comments above. Aucaman 03:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see where you wrote that you were quoting TheRegicider. In that case, my responses were directed at him. THanks. UCRGrad 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

"Univeristy of Chinest Refugees"

The school's nickname is "Univeristy of Chinest Refugees?" Not only is that incredibily offensive, it's not even a nickname anyone uses. Show me where the UCSB wiki article mentions its nickname of "U Can Study Boozed" or "Univeristy of Casual Sex and Beer." IT DOESN'T. That's the fourth nickname that's been put up on this article, making it clear that the authors are just trying to come up with things that are offensive, not true.

--Posted by Aucaman 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames: I think that is completely appropriate to mention common school nicknames, this has already been discussed thoroughly on this board. Additionally, just because another UC's Wiki page doesn't have a common name associated with it shouldn't make it an issue of this article. Additionally, they are not explicity offensive, perhaps they are only offensive to you. Insert-Belltower 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

<--- well whoever thinks that nickname is not offensive is a piece of sh** ignorant a** hole. keep in mind the previous statement is not explicitly offensive, perhaps only to those who feel it is directed toward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UcrGraduate (talk • contribs)

While the nickname may or may not be offensive, yours is certainly uncivil. Please refer to WP:CIV. Calwatch 04:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, tifego, neither Insert-Belltower nor myself (UCRGrad) inserted that nickname into the article... If there any admins here, this user is obviously not contributing in a constructive manner here...I'm wondering if there's any action we can take?UCRGrad 03:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The action you can take is to kindly ignore it. Actually, I think you (and possibly Calwatch) are missing the irony in his statement that he used to illustrate his point. His point was that this nickname, and "UC Rejects" and the others, are offensive nicknames, and that it is ridiculous to assert otherwise as Insert-Belltower did. He is undoubtedly correct about that. Also, both you and Insert-Belltower put "UC Rejects" into the article many times over, and you even added obviously-false references to back it up. Anyway, they aren't in the article now, so I won't continue about that. –Tifego _{04:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

I was referring to UC Rejects when I posted my original reply, and then cut and pasted it down here. I would agree with the removal of the Chinese Refugees name. As UCRGrad say, neither he nor I inserted it.

Insert-Belltower 04:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not add the Chinese Refugees nickname. I agree that it is not commonly used. However, UC Rejects IS a common nickname, and I need to find a citation that meets minimum standards here. I will not use the wiki "backronyms" article as a source, but I will find another one. UCRGrad 03:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Based on this large student body, this has earned UCR the nickname of "University of Chinese Refugees". <---- UC Berkeley also earned the nickname of University of Chinese Boys. What, never heard of it? Well it's cause I just made it up, probably what you just did. Take this off. Extremely offensive, unfounded, and just plain stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UcrGraduate (talk • contribs)

The UCR reference has been cited, and is not just a "made-up."

Insert-Belltower 02:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

But it's a self reference, and irrelevant to the article. There are no references in Nexis to "UC Rejects". Thus, it is just a gratuitous cheap shot. Calwatch 03:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

US News and Review Stats

As of right now, a user has to pay to view them. Given certain patterns of dishonesty, how can we trust these are real?

--Posted by Aucaman 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because you have to pay for information them does not make it an invalid source. Using your logic, a researcher wouldn't be able to cite journal articles because most publishers, with a few exceptions, require a paid subscription, either for paper or online copies. If you don't believe me, go to www.pubmed.com and enter in "CANCER" in the search, then try to download one of the journal articles that comes up.

I am offended that you would imply that I am being dishonest.

This aside, you do have free access to the US News at a public library where the US News magazine is usually on file.

Insert-Belltower 02:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

US News and World Report is freely available at your local library. I'm not sure what the big concern is here. This is a completely invalid and irrelevant argument here. This conversation will go a lot easier for everyone if you would refrain from making arguments that you KNOW are lame. Seriously. UCRGrad 03:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Please no name calling. I do agree with UCRGrad, though, that just because a source is in printed form or requires payment does not remove its legitimacy. Calwatch 03:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

StudentsReview.com

StudentsReview.com: I posted this earlier, but I'll do it again. They quote StudentsReview.com whose unreliability is proven on the front page, when it estimates the school's average ACT score is a 14. How can you honestly tell me that this is non-bias when it just quotes random negative comments from a messageboard? You can't even verify that these people aren't quoting themselves. It's clearly against the rules to cite non-verifiable sources.Of course they don't site the postive reviews like this one: "My overall take on the campus was a good one, the education I received I use everyday at my job. My roommate and I were hired before we graduated from UCR and both received a signing bonus along with a relocation package." The placement of this quote so clearly indicated bias it's not even funny. If we are going to get into the business of quoting random internet users, we must do it evenly. The opinion of a single unverifable poster? That cannot be consider NPOV.

--Posted by Aucaman 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

students surveyed on StudentsReview.com would not return to UCR if given the choice, with one student reviewer calling the campus "an absolute abomination." <--- how is this possibly not subjective? not only are you quoting a WEBSITE, you are using ONE student's OPINION. i happened to take a look at your "source" and you failed to mention that the sample size was 48 students. i'm sure that changes things a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.118.98 (talk • contribs)

I doubt PR's sample size return from UC Riverside was much bigger. There were a lot of negative comments on StudentsReview..."an absolute abomination" pretty much sums them up. However, I don't have a problem with removing that one in particular, only because quotes from individual users does not Wiki's policies...On the other hand, the survey conducted by StudentsReview.com is perfectly acceptable. It's not ideal, and it's not rigorous, but it's acceptable as verifiable information. UCRGrad 03:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

StudentsReview.com barely skirts acceptability of WP:V. A student newspaper or quotes from a Fiske's Guide or Yale Daily News Guide would be much better. Calwatch 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

UV Theater

UV Theater. It's used because of a "due to lower patronage by moviegoers"? Ummmm. That's just unnecessary negativity. ALL MOVIE THEATRES HAVE LOW PATRONAGE AT 9 IN THE MORNING. The author purposely uses that language to imply that there is something wrong with the theaters, when in reality, it's a great relationship all around. The lin adds NOTHING to the article except for further negativity and bias.

--Posted by Aucaman 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have enought information to call the statement "that all theaters have a lower patronage of moviegoers at 9 in the morning" negative. In this case, this statement is explaining why the UV is one for classes in the morning. Nevertheless, I would be open to a rewording of the statement, if you wish.

Insert-Belltower 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing the conclusion would work. It could also be spun as an innovative joint use project for the university. You don't know either way, unless you can find an article or document as to the agreement the school made with the movie theater, or why it was purchased. Calwatch 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the big hoo-hah is here. I'm not sure what kind of magical imagery you're coming up with, but it's a simple fact: patronage is SO low at the UV theater, that they don't lose any money by just shutting down and letting UCR have its lectures there. There's nothing wrong with doing that, it's just a bit unusual, and it's clearly because patronage is low. Do you think if enough customers came in to make a good profit that they'd kick them out and have classes instead?? NO WAY! ...however, to make the logical leap and say "oh that's bias, that's bias" is propesterous. UCRGrad 03:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Who owns the theater? How much does UCR pay the theater? Nowadays, a lot of theaters don't even operate before 4 PM anyway, because the cost of running matinees compared with ticket take is so low. Without understanding the joint use agreement between the owners and the university (or why the university decided to build a movie theater), we don't know. It should be noted that a lot of big lecture halls at other schools are used for movies and big events in evenings and weekends, so this is not much different. Calwatch 03:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I really doesn't matter that much for the purpose of this article. If you would like to do some extra-research to be included on this subject then I would say go ahead. But, again I don't think it matters that much.

Insert-Belltower 03:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Environment

"Environment is also a key factor that influences student life." Great. Doesn't belond in an encyclopedia article. It's an opinion of the author and not a fact. It further contributes to this piece reading as an opinion not an entry of pure factual information. That section as a whole, is more relevant to an entry on Riverside and not the University itself. "Environment is also a key factor that influences student life. The Riverside area is referred to as a “smog belt” because of its above-average level of air pollution. In a comparison by the National Campaign Against Dirty Air Power (2003), the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area was found to be the most polluted region based on year-round soot measurements when compared to other U.S. cities. In fact, the New England Journal of Medicine (2004) published results from a longitudinal study comparing pollution in southern California communities with lung health in children. Not only did the authors find that Riverside pollution levels were amongst the highest, but they also discovered that air in this region can damage childrens' lungs. . . The associated brown haze can be seen in the Carillon Tower photo below, where it obscures the bottom third of the sky." Should be cut. It makes no mention of the school itself. Obviously there should be a link to the city of Riverside, or even a statement that says "The city of Riverside is know for high levels of smog." If the reader wants to investigate further, that's fine. You wouldn't read an article about "The Bush Doctrine" and find a large section about the disputed 2000 election.

--Posted by Aucaman 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Environment: I believe that this is an important point to mention in the UCR article because it directly has an impact on student life. Other Wiki articles on UC campuses describe the university environment.

From the UCI wiki article Student Life section: “Due to its location in a preplanned suburban community, general student apathy, reputation as an academic or suitcase school (students tend to go home on the weekends, but stay on campus during the week nights), UCI has had a reputation as a quieter college town. Newport Beach, which is less than 10 minutes away, is home to a vibrant night life.”

This briefly describes key factors the will influence a student’s life at UCI, even though some of which are negative. The UCR article is not out of the ordinary in this regard. Insert-Belltower 02:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Riverside is sometimes referred to as "The 909," carries somewhat of a negative connotation <--- may be true, but what's your source???? stick with the facts.

The source is already cited in the article, last I checked.

Insert-Belltower 02:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a sentence with a reference should do, though. The air in the Inland Empire has cleaned up dramatically since 10 or 20 years ago, and the smog isn't much of an issue. Calwatch 03:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Calwatch, I realize that you've probably heard a lot of hearsay about the smog, and you may even have personal experience. However, the latest pollution data (cited) as well as a recent NEJM article (cited) supports the notion that Riverside is still very much polluted...and damages lungs in children. The issue is verifiability, not truth. Regardless, I can tell you that the smog in Riverside is the worst I've seen anywhere. With regard to references on "The 909," it's pretty much common knowledge what the 909 means. I did cite a reference, but I will use one that's not from wiki. However, I'm now concerned that this individual is attempting to suppress truth/facts and censor potentially harmful facts about UCR through any means possible. UCRGrad 03:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

As I said before, I think this article has come a long way from when it was 6 months ago, when my attempts to put the SAT score and GPA of the average freshman were reverted and I was attacked personally for including that information. (See talk archives.) But at this point, no one is "suppressing" verifiable negative information about the school. Some of the stuff you are defending are pretty ancillary to the campus. Calwatch 03:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Athletics

Athletics, which I mentioned earliers: "Because of the commuter nature of the school, school spirit and enthusiasm for UC Riverside athletics is low, and attendance at these events (except promotional games) tends to be minimal." OPINION OPINION OPINION. Not only does the author make a subjective conclusion but they attempt to explain the cause as well--both are inappropriate in a non-biased article. And again, if we're are so worried about UCR's upwards and downwards trends, then I'm sure UCR Grad and InsertBellTower will have no problem adding that both the Women's Basketball and Soccer teams qualified for the Division 1 NCAA Tournament this yea--for the first time in the school's history. Which, aside from the prestige that provides, also guarentees more funding in the future for the athletics department.

--Posted by Aucaman 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with a rewording of this statement regarding sports attendence, but assert that the principal point of it is true and can be fully cited. I will look for more information on this subject. I would not have a problem with adding the Div.I information, as long as it's cited and placed in the appropriate place.

There still needs to be a mention of the recent Athletic sucesses. If we're going to discuss low attendence we must discuss the fact that two teams just qualfied fro the NCAA tourney in the first time in school's history. TheRegicider 19:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from adding this information. SoCalAlum 21:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the lock prevents me. I just created my account, I normally just edited with out, so I'm considered new.TheRegicider 00:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

General Comments: I am somewhat amused by the lines: "This article is a disgrace. It's biased and purposely negative. Certain people are using this page as a way to deter students from attending, because they had a bad experience. This is not the venue, it needs to stop."

There is absolutely not validity or proof for these statements. However they reveal your own personal bias towards this article and your agenda to change it as you see fit.

Have a Nice Day

Insert-Belltower Insert-Belltower 02:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you should stop accusing others of having personal agendas. WP:AGF. Your comments above that look constructive, but the rest ("General Comments") was unnecessary and irrelevant to this article. –Tifego _{03:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

Actually, Tifego, if you scroll up, you'll find that the vast majority of accusations that there is a personal agenda have been from others directed at IB and me. I have even taken the time to list many of the offenses from DtEW in a separate dedicated section. You should check it out. UCRGrad 03:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So? It's not helping the article. Stop trying to put the blame on DtEW. –Tifego _{03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

Lots of schools have poor attendance for sporting events, and most of them are commuter schools. The other schools in the Big West Conference (Fullerton State, UC Irvine, San Jose State) are not known for high attendance either. See, for instance, this editorial from the student newspaper (scared of the thought of the usual 1,000 patron crowd in a 12,000 seat arena); assistant sports editor column complaining about sports apathy, etc. Calwatch 03:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What then is the problem with mentioning it? I wouldn't object if the same thing was said in articles on the other commuter schools.

Insert-Belltower 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Haider (pronounced 'Hater')

Where is the source that his name is pronounced this way and what's the significance? Aucaman 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is important to know how to correctly pronounce something.

Insert-Belltower 02:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If that is your reasoning, then you shouldn't mind the change, which is made according to this pronunciation guide. –Tifego _{03:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

<-- yes it is important to "know how to correctly pronounce something" but a name like "haider" isn't too difficult to decipher. if that's your reasoning, then we can go through the entire article and sound (prounounced "sownd") out word for our ("owr") readers ("reeeduhrs"). take this supercilious garbage out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UcrGraduate (talk • contribs)

I agree. Aucaman 03:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It could be prounounced "HAY-ter" or "HIGH-ter." It's not obvious to me, and it wasn't obvious to the 3 people sitting next to me just now either. UCRGrad 03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

I was just about to write the same thing. Insert-Belltower 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not "hay-der" or "high-der"? The first of those seems most logical to assume. –Tifego _{03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

More neutral would be to use the IPA alphabet. Any linguists in the house? Calwatch 03:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

so you decided to help the readers pronounce haider but no help w/ Rubidoux??

I didn't write the paragraph containing Rubidoux. I don't go around changing other people's work, unless there are factual errors or things that I can correct. In addition, I'm wondering if you can cite some grammatical rule that dictates the pronounciation of the prefix "Hai-"...thanks. UCRGrad 03:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rubidoux is pronounced in the standard way with the French "dough" as the last syllable. I agree Haider could go many ways. Calwatch 03:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

it wasn't obvious to me or the 4 other people sitting next to me. whether, it's pronounced hay or high, the content of the passage is not affected whatsoever. potaytoes, potahtoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by UcrGraduate (talk • contribs)

Archiving

This page is in a serious need of some archiving, but most of the discussions seem recent. What do you guys think? Aucaman 02:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think everything above the "NPOV editing" section can safely be archived at this time. –Tifego _{02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

I agree. Calwatch 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Aucaman 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Insert-Belltower 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

POV to POV check

Finally, some good news. I've replaced the POV dispute tag with a POV-check tag. The article has made significant improvements NPOV-wise, for which I compliment all users involved. Right now, the article fits into the "Articles which you have edited to be neutral, but may have overlooked something" category. I don't plan to defend the POV-check, so anyone with a decent reason should feel free to remove it. Deltabeignet 03:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is definitely good news, and I agree with Deltabeignet that this article has made significant progress in its neutrality. However, I replaced {{POV check}} with {{POV}} because I think the choice between the tags boils down to how active the dispute is, not so much how serious the article's POV problems are. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the article's NPOV status in the past few days, so it's still an active dispute. Tag placement isn't a huge issue for me, so anyone can feel free to change back to POV check if they feel it's warranted. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Alumni Giving Rates

According this this article in the Harvard Crimson (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510011) the national percentage of alumni donations is only 12%, with the top schools like Harvard at about 40%. The stat's purpose is clearly to paint a negative picture of the school, with the lack of context blowing it out of purportion. Even the, these stats hardly hold much water when it comes to rankings. US News and Review (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/weight_brief.php) allows them to account for no more than 5% of their total scores. Thusly, the statistic is already incorporated into the article via the USNR ranking. I'm going to delete it until a justifiable explaination is given. TheRegicider 05:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see why somebody tried to take out that line. I don't think the purpose of the statistic was to paint a negative picture of the school, per se. I mean, I looked at the US News reference, and it checks out. I agree that alumni giving rate is only a small component of overall ranking, but I think it says a lot when a school's overall rank in alumni donations is dead last in the country. I also saw on US News that they also give the school's rank based on alumni giving, not just the percentage...since they have two separate columns for this statistics and they mention it in the big table, I'm pretty sure it's important. I also don't see how the statistic is already incorporated in the article, as I don't htink it's mentioned anywhere else. So I'm adding it back in, as I honestlyl don't see a very good reason to take it out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.178.207 (talk • contribs)

Since the article mentions the overrall USNR ranking, it's redundant to include statistics they used to come up with that ranking. The stat lacks context, the giving rate is not far above the national average. If it held any real significance it would account for more than 5% of the schools total ranking. So given its little importance, the fact that we already cite the total ranking, we don't need it. It's staying out.TheRegicider 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with the user above and NOT with Theregicider. It's important simply because USNWR chose to report it separately. When I read scientific articles, the authors will make conclusions at the end. This is like the "overall rank." However, people reading these articles will demand to know how these conclusions were derived. People want to know HOW the conclusions were determined, i.e. HOW they came up with "overall rank." Since you say that alumni giving rate is a part of how overall rank is determined by USNWR, you are obliged to include it.

As an aside,I've looked at the change log and it looks like you have been systematically removing information that makes this school look bad. I'd like you to stop doing that. Some of your changes are reasonable, but others really are not. In this case, they're not. Thanks for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.1 (talk • contribs)

You haven't signed any of the remarks, so in all liklihood, you were responding and supporting yourself. How is anyone supposed to take seriously remarks that aren't even accounted for? The word "indeed" at the begining of the quote implies a tone not appropriate in an unbiased article. The stat as it is now lacks context. No one knows anything about alumni giving rates, so 5% seems low when in fact it is not. For instance the fact that public university's typically have far far lower giving rates, that as a whole the rates have declined accross the entire country, etc etc. Few if any of the other school's article include this stat, as the UNSR ranking as a whole already includes it. I'm not obliged to do anything but make this article fair, as it stands right now the statistics are arranged in such a way that are overwhelmingly negative. You're new here--or an old person with a new name attempting to fool people--so I'm going to go ahead and revert this. TheRegicider 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Responses to ALL of TheRegicider's Arguments against Including Alumni Giving Rates

TheRegicider has argued that we shouldn't include alumni giving rates. I have summarized his reasons and explained why he is incorrect or his logic is fault.

Reason 1: National alumni donation rate is 12%, at Harvard about 40%. Therefore, the lack of context "blows it out of proportion." (UCR is 5%)

This is irrelevant. The fact is, 5% is STILL extremely low compared to those national average and Harvard. Put differently, the national average is 2.4x higher than UCR, and Harvard is 8x higher. We might even consider adding the previous sentence in too.

Reason 2: USNWR only gives 5% weight to alumni giving rates. Since we have already listed overall rank of UCR, we don't need to list facts that comprise the overall rank.

This reasoning makes no sense. As another user already tried to explain to TheRegicider, people don't want to just know the overall rank, they want to know how it was derived -- what facts or statistics contributed to that overall rank. If all of the component scores were not important, USNews wouldn't have listed them out in their master table -- they would have simply listed each school next to its numerical rank and that's it.

Reason 3: Theregicider changes his argunent slightly and writes that if alumni giving rates "held any real significance it would account for more than 5% of the schools total ranking."

This is also untrue. If alumni giving rates did NOT hold any real significant, US News would NOT have used it to calculate the overall rank TO BEGIN WITH! The FACT that USNWR even considers this statistics is PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that it IS important.

Reason 3: You haven't signed any of the remarks, so in all liklihood, you were responding and supporting yourself.

Misplaced Pages allows unsigned editors. Using the fact that some authors didn't sign their work is not a valid reason to revert or to make accusations (especially when both anonymous users EXPLAINED their reasoning in discussion.)

Reason 4: The word "indeed" at the begining of the quote implies a tone not appropriate in an unbiased article.

Indeed is not an inherently biased word. In context it does not add bias either. It is simply a linker word that maintains the direction of the paragraph.

Reason 5: "No one knows anything about alumni giving rates, so 5% seems low when in fact it is not."

As explained above, the national average is 2.4x as high as UCR's alumni giving rate. It IS LOW. ..however just in case people aren't familiar with the national average, the sentence also qualifies this percentage with UCR's nationwide rank in terms of alumni giving. That way, there's no way you could be confused about whether 5% is high, middle, or low. It is low because UCR is ranked LAST in alumni giving.

Reason 6: For instance the fact that public university's typically have far far lower giving rates, that as a whole the rates have declined accross the entire country, etc etc.

Again, UCR's nationwide RANK for alumni giving is also specified in the sentence you are trying to delete. Therefore, it really makes little difference that public universities have lower giving rates - UCR is the LOWEST of ALL public universities. Whether or not rates have declined is irrelevant as well.

Reason 7: Few if any of the other school's article include this stat,

This article is far more comprehensive and informative than articles from other schools on Wiki. As many people have pointed out in the past, using other wikipedia articles is NOT a valid reference. I will also reiterate that other Wiki articles on colleges are NOT the benchmark for how a college article should be written.

Reason 8: I'm not obliged to do anything but make this article fair, as it stands right now the statistics are arranged in such a way that are overwhelmingly negative.

So your true reason for removing the line is to take out a negative fact about UC Riverside. Unfortunately, if you make a list of all the important statistics one would be interested in from a university, they're all included in the article. The problem is that most of these statistics are not favorable when it comes to UCR. There's really no way to change the fact that when compared to other UC's, UCR is usually at the bottom or near the bottom in just about everything (except for pollution) - and this is easily substantiated in just about any University-wide publication. HOWEVER, there's a difference between relaying the FACTS about UCR (which are quite negative from an objective standpoint) and BIAS. By removing important facts and sugar-coating others, you are actually INTRODUCING positive bias! As it stands now, the article is an accurate portrayal of UCR. I truly and honestly believe that.

Reason 9: You're new here--or an old person with a new name attempting to fool people--so I'm going to go ahead and revert this.

So in the absence of any other good argument, you're going to simply revert because the guy didn't sign his name? Unless you can produce a Wiki article that permits reversion of unsigned article changes, I think you're definitely out of line here.

UCRGrad 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you appear to be incapable of understanding that it's not just the stat, but the way it is presented, I will make it more appropriate tonight. Until then, it stays out. TheRegicider 17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I dissected out 9 of your counterarguments above, and I addressed all of them. I notice that you were able to defend 0 of them. You are now clinging to one of your MINOR arguments as to why the line should be removed, yet in re-reading what you wrote, you failed to EXPLAIN the problem with the "presentation" of the line. A few things: - just because YOU have a problem with the way a sentence is "presented," does not give you the prima facie right to delete it. Otherwise, you are out of line. - if you have a problem with the presentation of a sentence, you are expected to EXPLAIN WHY. It is not sufficient to say "I don't like it, I'm deleting it. That's it." Until you explain why, the line stays in. - Like it or not, not everyone is going to SIGN their edits. That's just life. However, when individuals make edits AND EXPLAIN WHY in discussion, then you are expected to address their comments. If you do a blanket revert, you are behaving inappropriately here.

UCRGrad 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Redundant sentence

I have a problem with this sentence in the article:

"Approximately 1 out of every 8 freshmen leave UC Riverside after their first year, based on a freshman retention rate of 85%, the lowest of any UC"

The problem is that it says the same thing twice. 1 out of every 8 means 85% retention rate, so it's stupid to say the same thing twice in a row. 85% is the more accurate of the two numbers, so I think that's the one that should stay in the article, but certainly not both of them should stay. –Tifego _{21:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)}

That sounds reasonable to me.

Insert-Belltower 22:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Regicider Issue

Sorry Regicider, you lose. UCRGrad has given you 8 reasons why the statistic should stand, and your response: "since you appear to be incapable of understanding that it's not just the stat, but the way it is presented, I will make it more appropriate tonight. Until then, it stays out." Not only does this statement show a lack a maturity it also shows an unwillingness to be reasonable. You have lost my respect. I will REVERT any changes that you make until you apologize to UCRgrad and conduct yourself in a more civil manner.

Good Day Insert-Belltower 22:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've compromised to acknowledge the statistics necessity. However in it's current form, it doesn't provide context. It is entirely appropriate to compare the giving rate to UCLA and UC Davis as the article does it numerous times already. I couldn't care less about your respect, nor will I apologize. You promise to revert anything I do is no different than my promise to keep that stat out in its current form--so much for your maturity eh? TheRegicider 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Your twisted logic is mindbloggling. I would suggest that you take some courses in critical thinking, which you might find a local community college. You have not made the case for why this particular statistic needs to be in a context.

Insert-Belltower 23:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no reasonable objection to the posting of 2 other similar university's alumni rates. Since the average reader has no real knowledge of alumni giving rates, lets provide them with adequate context. The stats still show that UCR is below, so whats the problem unless you're trying to mislead. TheRegicider 23:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is too arbitrary to cherry pick alumni giving rates of two universities of YOUR choosing. The only objective way is to use the method from US News and World report -- that is, give the school's OVERALL ALUMNI GIVING RANK along with the alumni giving percentage. UCR ranks LAST in the nation. Stop trying to sugar-coat it and add positive bias. It's LAST. DEAD LAST. And that fact must be included. UCRGrad 01:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to address anything Regicider says, until he shows more respect.

68.73.54.149 03:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha. I'm sorry for not giving you your just due sir. Cry me a river. TheRegicider 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Community Service

According to Washington Monthly, UCR ranks number one in the nation for community service. ( http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0201.charts.html ) With all the negativity this stat needs to go up. I'm not sure whether it fits better under student life, academics, or history. Let me know and I'll put it up. TheRegicider 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's cited, I don't have a problem with it.

Insert-Belltower 23:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it makes most sense under student life, or if there's no good place to put it in there, then under academics. –Tifego _{23:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)}

Images & captions

Why does this article have so many images? Most articles with this many images also have a lot more text than this.

• I especially wonder why there are 2 different pictures of ugly brown construction sites in this article (one in "Academics" and another in "Student life"). Lots of places have construction going on all over, but there's no case for it being so prominently displayed in an article unless some huge proportion of the campus is perpetually in a state of construction. Also, the caption on the first construction image sounds quite hateful (albeit subtly): "Construction in the core of campus. Typical brown-brick buildings to the left, right, and background, alongside tree/cement landscaping". The image already speaks for itself as far as building color and where the trees and cement are, and saying it's "in the core of the campus" is no more necessary or relevant than saying it's "on campus".
• The DDR image is kind of random. I think if anything else should go (in addition to the first one above), it's probably that.
• About the note, "The associated brown haze can be seen in the Carillon Tower photo on the right, where it obscures the bottom third of the sky." This seems unnecessary to me, especially because the photo has nowhere near enough "brown haze" in it to honestly describe it as "obscuring" the bottom third of the sky. –Tifego _{23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)}

I agree. Unless anyone has anything better I can take some in the next few days. As for the construction, there are only 3 projects currently ongoing at UCR so you're right it does skew reality. TheRegicider 23:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

1.) I would be okay with the following: "The associated brown haze can be seen in the Carillon Tower photo on the right, as seen in the bottom third of the sky."

2.) I don't have a problem with the caption under the representative picture of construction, I'm not sure why you see it as "hateful." It is a growing campus, and that should be illustrated.

3.) I like the belltower picture, it's a key symbol of the school.

Insert-Belltower 03:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The belltower picture is fine, and I didn't say otherwise, but there's no need to have two construction site pictures, unless mounds of dirt and "typical brown-brick buildings" are also key symbols of the school. And "typical" is the word I had the biggest problem with in the caption. It's too vague a term, and not very neutral-sounding to describe anything as "typical". (It also didn't help that both of the construction captions used that same word.) I mean, if it's important that it's typical, it would be much better to say what exactly that means, or at least use a slightly less-loaded word such as "common". –Tifego _{01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

By the way, I'm not extremely adamant about that. Just take it as my opinion that it was a (minor) violation of WP:NPOV. –Tifego _{02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

I would be okay with the use of the word "common." However, it is important that the caption be clear and detailed.

Insert-Belltower 14:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel wording

"Riverside area is referred to as a “smog belt” because of its above-average level of air pollution."

Who refers to it as that? It should be worded differently in the article. –Tifego _{02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

I think that this is completely appropriate. I don't understand what is the problem?

Insert-Belltower 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• The problem, in short, is that we don't know who refers to it as a smog belt, and without a source, the assertion is unverifiable. The ideal sentence would look something like this:

"In 2005, emeritus professor and Harvard graduate Dr. Bert Kopecsky decried Riverside air standards in the New England Journal of Medicine, saying, 'Look at the higher concentration of particulates and nitrates. This place is practically a smog belt'.(footnote)" Deltabeignet 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Racism

Racism in the Inlande Empire isn't relevant in an article about UCR. The Inland Empire is massive, with millions of people. The placement of the article is clearly an attempt to reflect poorly on the school by association. The point is that UCR is most diverse campus in the UC system, racism clearly is not a problem. TheRegicider 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TheRegicider on this point, although I would assume good faith re: the claim that the edit is "an attempt to reflect poorly on the school by association". Discussion of racism would be relevant if someone provided evidence that there are significantly more hate or bias motivated incidents at UCR than at other UC schools, or other schools in California. TheRegicider said in the edit summary that we don't discuss Richmond gangs in the Berkeley article. As another example, I'm from Ventura County, CA, where we've had a problem with Nazi skinhead gangs for a while. Do we discuss this in University of California, Santa Barbara, California State University, Channel Islands, California Lutheran University, etc.? szyslak (t, c, e) 21:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad's Justification of Need to Include Article on Racism

Summary of objections by others:

Objection: Racism in the Inlamd Empire is not relevant in an article about UCR.

Racism IS relevant because: UCR is not an isolated entity - it is integrated geographically and socioeconomically with the city/county of Riverside, as well as the surrounding community. It is not possible to discuss a university EXCLUSIVE of these associated factors.

Objection: Placement of article is an attempt to reflect poorly on the school by association.

Absolutely not. If you read the article, right at the top of Student Life it says "The 2006 U.S. News & World Report College Rankings place UC Riverside #4 nationwide for campus diversity." The reader infers that UCR is a haven for people of color and embraces people of all ethnic backgrounds. Failure to mention that UCR is located smack-dab in the middle of an area KNOWN to have a high incidence of racial hate crime is incredibly misleading. The information MUST be balanced in order to have a neutral point of view. Otherwise, the article will have a positive bias.

Objection: Discussion of racism only pertinent if someone provided evidence that there is more hate crime at UCR than other UC schools, or other schools in CA.

Discussion of race in general is 100% pertinent to a university article. Information on ethnic distribution, ethnic diversity, etc. is almost always included in brochures, college websites, it's discussed in US News, Princeton Review, etc. However, if something is unusual about race relations at a school, especially one that claims to have one of the most diverse student bodies in the nation, it deserves mention. I agree that if someone actually studied rates of hate crime at UCR vs. other UC schools, it should be included for that reason. But in the absence of such a study, discussion of hate is STILL important in this article for the above reasons. Furthermore, even IF the rate of hate crime isn't the highest in the UC system, it STILL deserves mention because of that fact that UCR is located in such a geographical location that exposes people to hate crime.

Objection: We don't discuss Richmond gangs in Berkeley article, therefore, should not discuss racism in UCR article. Corollary: There are Nazi skinheads in Ventura County, should we discuss them in the USCB, CSU Channel Islands, and CA Lutheran Univ articles?

There are a lot of things in the Berkeley article that are not mentioned that we mention here, and vice versa. It really isn't relevant if Richmond gangs aren't mentioned. HOWEVER, if someone were add information that was a) referenced, and b) demonstrated how pervasive a problem Richmond gangs were, then it SHOULD be included. However, Berkeley and the east bay is compartmentalized and the Richmond gangs do not impact the Berkeley campus or immediately adjacent area that much. It's a nonparallel example. I have an article that demonstrates how pervasive racism is in the Riverside area.

For the above reasons, I am confident that the information about racism in Riverside is important to this article about UC Riverside, in order to balance the potentially biasing data that UCR is the most diverse campus in the UC system, and #4 for ethnic diversity in the nation.

The article you cite does demonstrate one thing: there are Nazi punks in the Inland Empire. But there are Nazi punks in a lot of places. Here's the chain of logic you seem to be going by:

• There is racist violence in the Inland Empire.
• UCR is in the Inland Empire.
• Therefore, there could be racist violence at UCR, or affecting UCR students.

Well, the Inland Empire Nazis could go after UCR students, but that doesn't mean they will. I can see how verifiable information about this problem, from reliable sources, might be relevant in articles like Riverside, California and Inland Empire (California). But unless there's a verifiable source that says UCR is a dangerous place for minorities, the passage about neo-Nazis is inappropriate in this article, and is POV original research. Therefore, I have reverted your edits. szyslak (t, c, e) 02:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics