Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Let's try this again 2 Student's Review Redux. 3 Princeton Review Statistics 4 Hate Crime Stats 5 Response to Dandan's concerns about UCR Medical Library 6 American Association for the Advancement of Science 7 Update on Hate Crime 8 Calm down folks! 9 Classroom size 10 Stephanie Kay 11 Business School 12 Fat Girl 13 Nobel laureates 14 Inappropriate Deletions 15 Photo of Sorority Girl 16 Creative writing 17 Mediation 18 Compromise

[edit] Let's try this again

(I archived all 82kb of the previous talk page, after finding no recent topics that had not devolved into uncivility or pointlessness.)

–Tifego^(t) _{04:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)}

It is obvious that UCRgrad is a sockpuppet with one thing in mind which is ruining the reputation of UCR. So why isn't the person banned? Please can we have someone else control the content of the page and stop arguing with UCRgrad or 909er as both are the same person.

[edit] Student's Review Redux.

The StudentsReview.com stat needs to go for multiple reasons.

• The sample size is 40 students. It's self-reported data as well, and thusly not accurate enough for Wikistandards. You can't cite a messageboard, you can't cite a forum like this. Putting this up is like quoting ApartmentRatings.com. Additionally, with the recent substantiated claims of sockpuppetry, it's clear that we cannot trust a user-submitted site. The use of multiple identities could--and likely has--tainted Student's Review.com

• The statistics listed on the site show a pattern of inaccuracy. They claim that UCR has an average ACT of 14. Clearly, that is not true and is contradicted by UCR admission statistics. I don't even think you can get into a UC school with a score that low. UCRGrad responded that this is because not everyone submits their ACT score, if this is the case then the site contains a major data flaw that prevents accuracy in the stats. A reader who follows that link is immediatly presented with a statistic that is clearly not true and thus undermines our article.

• The site still has an Application deadline of 2004. It's 2 years outdated.

• Even if it were acceptable to use information from the site, the authors who have done so, did it selectively. The majority of the school's ratings are in the B range--none of which has been mentioned in the article. If it is so imperative that we mention hate crimes near campus, we must pursue this angle with equal vigor. Since it's current form is misleading and lacking context, the statistic must go.

I have provided adequate reasoning for the removal of the statistic. I'm sure the majority of the users here back them. Thusly, do not revert it until you've addressed these concerns. If additional data is not entered to even the playing field--show both the positive and the negative, it cannot even begin to be considered as NPOV. That aside, the site's very nature does not meet Wiki standards.

Thank you TheRegicider 04:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the StudentsReview.com stats must go. A self-selecting user-submitted population with sample size of 40? Not exactly reliable information. Dandan 04:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The argument here about StudentsReview.com data is problematic for several reasons. 1) Sample size of 40 is appropriate. When Princeton Review sends out surveys for each school, how many responses do you think they get back? 40 is about right. Secondly, when US News sends out its own surveys, they don't even get a return of 40 for each school! 40 is also "generally" enough to apply many statistical tests, provided the raw data is obtainable. Thus, sample size ALONE, is not a valid argument.

2) Most UCR students don't take the ACT (they take SAT). Thus, OF the students that took the ACT and responded to the StudentsReview.com survey their average was 14. This makes perfect sense. It is likely that students who did poorly on SAT, took the ACT for the off chance that they would score comparatively higher on the ACT (and boost their objective numbers). This is a common practice among low-scoring high school students. Thus, there really is nothing alarming about such a low avg ACT score. Again, it just means that OF the students that took the ACT and responded to the StudentsReview.com survey their average was 14. What it also does is provide background information on the respondents - by reporting average ACT, along with average age, SAT scores, GPA of survey respondents, etc. we get an idea of what the sample pool was. It is standard practice in observational studies (including surveys) to report this type of background information. Nothing about the reported average ACT invalidates the survey data.

3) You cannot argue that self-reported data does not meet wiki standards. By definition, ALL surveys that are not done by structured interview are self-reported. Wiki's restriction on message boards is only that a random person's post cannot be used as a reference. For instance, if a user writes "UCR is the smog-capital of the U.S.," you can't reference that users's post because it comes from a message board. That's different from a website-conducted survey of college students that is tabulated and reported. You may criticize the methodology as imperfect, but NO study is perfect. Survey is one of the weakest forms of scientific data collection, but it is still valid and acceptable.

4) If you look at the dates of when survey data was submitted, you'll find that they were added periodically over a period of several years - unlikely to be the work of a "sockpuppet." Furthermore, if you compare the survey data to other UC's, you'll find a UCR's data isn't really an outlier. I believe the data to be reasonably valid, but definitely reportable on wikipedia. UCRGrad 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that the Princeton Review has a sample size of 40 students? That's so ridiculous that I am without words. The data flaw alone invalidates this stat. If the SR was on top of things they'd get rid of the ACT data but they haven't. As it currently stands it claims the average score is 14. IT'S NOT TRUE. With that same flaw in mind the SAT, GPAs are tainted if a studented did not enter their score. As you've said, survey's are the weakest form of data. This article is jammed backed with info, we do not need to lower our standards to admit it. We've got plenty of stats painting an accurate picture, we don't need this one. Anyways, majority is clearly on my side--I imagine it will be as you're now without sockpuppets, so it will stay out. TheRegicider 17:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Read again: "When Princeton Review sends out surveys for each school, how many responses do you think they get back? 40 is about right." 40 for EACH school. That's about right. Secondly, your misread the site. SR.com doesn't claim the average score is 14. The site reports that 14 is the average ACT score of THOSE STUDENTS WHO FILLED OUT A SURVEY AND TOOK THE ACT. It is analogous to providing demographic data at the beginning of a population study - same thing. I explained this all above. Survey data is obviously less rigorous than a double-blind placebo-controlled study, but it does NOT mean that it is inadmissable on Wiki. Majority here does not necessarily mean correct. Keep in mind that your camp has not been formally examined for sockpuppets either. UCRGrad 20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Majority may not mean correct, but keep in mind that "Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken". As for us not being formally examined, perhaps we actually have been (I don't know), but if you want to make sure and have reason to believe we should be, you might consider filing an actual request. –Tifego^(t) _{00:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Princeton Review Statistics

What should we do about these statistics? From what I see from other schools, no other UC lists these statistics at all. For example, the "UCR in the bottom twenty among its top 361 for "Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses",[10] "Professors Get Low Marks [for Teaching]",[11] and "Professors Make Themselves Scarce".[12]." also apply to UCLA if you look it up online -- but the UCLA wiki doesn't mention it. Should we mention Princeton Review statistics at all? Going by what other UC's are doing on their wiki, I would say not to. Listing a simple ranking a la US News & World Report should be sufficient. What do you guys think? Dandan 04:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think it's odd that the Princeton Review for 2004 is used in one part of the article and one for 2006 used in another part of the article. –Tifego^(t) _{05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)}

Princeton Review statistics should be mentioned because PR is a widely-recognized and respected resource for college information and admissions. Just because the UCLA article doesn't mention the PR book, does not mean it shouldn't be mentioned in the UCR article. The UCLA article is NOT the gold standard by which we base university articles on wikipedia - therefore it is largely irrelevant what is written over there.UCRGrad 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, using other UC articles as a benchmark is not valid because they are not the "gold standard" for how a university article should be written. The mere fact that US News reports detailed campus rankings and statistics demonstrates that these data are important. A well-written college article would include these statistics, and I would even suggest that the editors of the Cal, UCLA, etc. articles to include these data.UCRGrad 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dandan, please re-read what I wrote: "using other UC articles as a benchmark is not valid because they are not the "gold standard" for how a university article should be written." This is a point I want to emphasize. UCRGrad 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

first of all, please don't cut my statements up (i have edited them back into their original format); its rude. second, what is the gold standard for what a university article is and how come you get to decide what the standard is for UCR? the gold standard definitely can't your edits considering how many people regard your version as severely & negatively biased. all the UC's are part of the same system, why wouldn't their wikipedia show similar & standardised information? it IS relevant what the UCLA wiki article has, because all the UC articles should strive to include similar information and background. Dandan 19:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's standard practice here to insert responses at natural break points - you must be new here. Secondly, there is no gold standard for a university article. That's my point. I never said it was my edits (nor did I imply this). Finally, each UC article is edited by different individuals, each of whom (supposedly) are knowledgable about the school they are writing about. Since there is no unified editor or agreed-upon format, it is not possible to have a single "gold standard" university article. Keep in mind that just because other UC articles don't contain XYZ, does NOT mean that's the way it ought to be -- this is known as the "is/ought fallacy," something your committing here. UCRGrad 20:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

After a brief inspection of the UCLA wiki article, I think that it should contain more detailed and standarized information, thus making it more encyclopedic! Insert-Belltower 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hate Crime Stats

I figured out why one source reports 5 hate crimes in UCR vs. the Clery Act (federal) source, which reports none. The reason is that the Clery Act (federal) source only reports hate crimes that also fall under the following categories: Murder/Non-negligent manslaughter Aggravated Assault Forcible sex offenses Arson Negligent manslaughter Simple Assault

That is, only VIOLENT hate crimes (plus arson) are Clery Act-reportable. However, the more generous statistic also includes non-violent hate crimes. Thus, there is no discrepancy between the refs. UCRGrad 17:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Dandan's concerns about UCR Medical Library

1. Yes, Melvyl is a computerized UC catalog of which library holds what. This includes a catalog of what medical references are held in what library. You can then order the medical reference you need from that library.

Exactly. It's not a medical reference itself. It's a conduit to "order" references from elsewhere. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

2. any substantial medical journal is available online.

Incorrect. Major medical journals have online access, but not all of them. Almost none of them are free to access. You are making assertions that you clearly do not have the background/experience/knowledge to make. UCRGrad 20:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

3. "classic" articles and important articles of historical nature are found online.

Incorrect. Classic articles tend to be older and are not, by definition, available in online form. You are making assertions that you clearly do not have the background/experience/knowledge to make. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

4. it usually takes 1 day for a scanned copy to arrive. if you're a medical student, you probably won't be procastinating till the last second. and besides, if you're really in THAT MUCH of a hurry, driving to UCI's medical library takes an hour, while driving to UCLA's medical library takes 1.5.

Exactly. 1 day for an article to arrive. 1 hour each way (with light traffic) to drive to UCI's medical library. These are gross inconveniences. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

5. i do argue they're UCLA medical students. their degree is from UCLA medical school. they go to UCLA's week long medical school orientation. if you look at any of their facebooks or talk to them, they will say they're a UCLA student.

Let me repeat: they ATTEND CLASS physically on the UCR campus. They PAY TUITION to UCR. Their UCR transcript contains the records and letter grades of their medical school coursework. UCLA is a "concurrent enrollment," and that's all. It is irrelevant if they attend a one-week orientation at UCLA or whether they "consider themselves" UCLA students. They become UCLA students once they TRANSFER to UCLA for MS3 and MS4 years, after which point they receive a UCLA diploma. Again: while they are at UCR for MS1/MS2, they are UCR students, plain and simple. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

6. UCR does not have a medical school & the medical students that are part of the UCLA program have access to everything they need.

EXCEPT for a dedicated medical library. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

... building a dedicated medical library and stocking it with highly expensive subscriptions to all the relevant medical journals in the world would be a remarkable waste of taxpayer money, not to mention utterly redundant considering the easy availability of such resources.

I completely 100% agree with you that building a medical library with expensive subscriptions is not financial feasible. However, this does not change the fact that the UCR medical studenst don't have such a medical library. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

7. they have online access to all of UCLA's library resources. in the rare scenario that they need something that isn't available online, they can get it within a business day. and if they're really that desperate and can't wait a day, then sure, drive an hour each way to get there.

I will stipulate that UCR students can access UCLA's online content, however, if you only knew how few textbooks and journals were available online, not to mention how many articles from the early 90's were not converted electronically, you wouldn't be making these remarks. There is absolutely no substitute for having access to print copies. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

8. what qualifications do YOU have to be considered an expert on this? who died and made you judge of all things medical education? and how do you know my background doesn't qualify me to speak on these matters?

Dandan 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Dandan, you clearly are not a medical student, otherwise you wouldn't be making statements like "classic" articles are available online or thinking that "oh, medical students probably wouldn't mind driving an hour each way to retrieve an article they should have locally." Do you honestly think they have two hours to "throw away" a couple times a week? I honestly think that you should divert your enthusiasm towards other parts of this UCR article that you might be better qualified to edit. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From the UCR Biomed website, "The University Library at UCR has a collection of more than 1.3 million bound volumes, 13,000 serial subscriptions and 1,150,000 microfilms. The new Science Library, which houses the portion of the collection relevant to Biomedical Sciences, is conveniently located adjacent to Webber Hall. In addition, all campus libraries have ready access to the collections of other University of California libraries, as well as those of other institutions, making more than 15 million volumes available to all students. On-line computer literature searches are available to graduate students at the UCR libraries and in many individual laboratories. The Science Library provides access to numerous bibliographic databases on-line and on CD-ROM, including Biological Abstracts, Medline and Current Contents." http://www.biomed.ucr.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=77 Honestly, 'nuff said. The facilities available is good enough -- there's no particular need for you to insert your personal opinion here.

Perhaps you should stop wasting your time on personal attacks regarding my research experience. I've spent enough time on PubMed and enough years working in a lab to know how it works.

Now, if you're done trying to call me stupid, I'll try arguing with you one more time, even though history and confirmed sockpuppetry has shown it's really quite useless.

Character attacks really don't help substantiate your point. Nobody is calling you stupid. UCRGrad 02:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Melvyl is not a medical reference. I never said it is. Melvyl is a conduit to get a copy of any medical reference that exists anywhere in any of the UC libraries. That's a pretty good conduit.

2. Of course medical references aren't free to access but UC's get subscriptions to them. UC students can access any online subscription that the UC system paid for (which is, in more accurate terms, a hellavua lot). and seriously, name me ONE medical journal of ANY relevance at all that isn't available online.

I will do even better. A 2005 article in the J Med Libr Assoc looked at faculty usage of online vs. print-only medical journals. Clearly, there were a substantial number of IMPORTANT medical journals found print-only, because the authors concluded: "Results of this study suggest, at this point, that faculty are still accessing the print-only collection, at least for research purposes, and are therefore not sacrificing quality for convenience." http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1082939&blobtype=pdf UCRGrad 02:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

at least for original biomedical research citations, which isn't exactly what most medical students would be accessing these journals for (especially not in MS1 & MS2). regardless though, the point is that they have easy access via interlibrary exchange & the internet, there is no need for a dedicated medical library. Dandan 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Give me an example of a classic/historical/field-defining paper that isn't available online. Dude, my immunology professor found Edward Jenner's cowpox vaccination papers from 1798 online. And if the medical student is researching some strange obscure disease that they MUST know the original disease description for, they would probably have at least a day's notice, which is enough time to get a copy of said strange obscure diseases' original disease description from some dusty archive in another UC library.

4. Gross inconvenience?! Gross inconvenience is the article not being available ONLINE.

5. UCR, not a medical school. UCLA, medical school.

6. So you want to complain about the lack of something that's not actually feasible?

7. Perhaps if you knew how many journals are available online, we wouldn't be having this argument. There is a substitute for having print copies. It's called, use the Print function on your computer.

8. What if I actually am a medical student? --;; How would you know either way? What exactly makes YOU qualified?

Dandan 00:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you guys are going in circles here. My dear Dandanxu, most your statements are simply a repeat of what was said previously. In my opinion, the point about the the papers being online is weak because my previous point that was raised, that is: if all the papers are now online, why is it necessary to even have a physical medical library? The fact is that UCR does not have a DEDICATED library. The key word here is dedicated. Look up dedicated before you respond. It is fine with me if the science library mentioned, but it still must be pointed out of for the sake of full clarity that there is no dedicated medical library. Insert-Belltower 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

and why exactly is it necessary to have a dedicated medical library that, by UCRGrad's own admission, isn't feasible? Dandan 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, whether or not it is feasible to have a dedicated medical library is irrelevant. The fact remains that UCR does NOT have a dedicated medical library. This reflects the limited medical education resources available to UCR medical students, which reflects the fact that UCR lacks a dedicated medical school. I will address your other questions later. UCRGrad 01:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

UCR doesn't have a medical school. UCR doesn't have a dedicated medical library (though, as the Biomed website clearly states, all Biomedical Sciences resources are stored in the science library) and nor should it. What do you want, really? Let's grab a new building, move all the resources from the Science library into a new "Medical Library", and open it up to 48 students? UCR Biomed students have all the library resources they need from access to journals at the Science library, online access, and interlibrary requests from any other UC campus. Dandan 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Association for the Advancement of Science

well... I think scientists in UCR deserve some credits.. this is what i came up

'UC Riverside is a research based university. In the past decade, UC Riverside has had leading numbers of faculty members named as fellows of American Association for the Advancement of Science among all institutions in the nation. As in 2006, 8 UCR faculty members have been elected to AAAS fellowship, highest among UC schools. '

http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/fellows/2005.shtml http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2002/april09art1.htm (bottom portion of the article)

Let me know if i counted it wrong.. "CTRL + FIND" YES, UCR is not a perfect nor a most selective school.. AS long as negative facts are expressed in a NPOV way.. i have not problem seeing them on the article. But it caught my attention by seeing someone tried so hard to object this credible school using words such as "909", "SMOG BELT", "University of Chinese Refugee".. i mean.. what's wrong? Those words are 100% opnion based.. why people hate it so much? This article was actually misleading people to believe that UCR is "IN FACT" the worst school in the world, which it isn't. come on.. give it some respect.. "CONTRIBUTIONS" claimed by some people, in my opnion, are just jokes. but i'm glad to see some progress going on.. and this is what Wikipedia is all about.. --bowbowx

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.224.50.16 (talk • contribs) .

A few things here: - I have no objection to adding AAAS numbers. - "University of Chinese Refugees" is offensive, and was removed from the article a LONG time ago. - Nobody reading this article will infer that UCR is the worst school in the world - dunno where you're getting this from. - "smog-belt" is an actual term, and it is referenced. UCRGrad 16:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

there.. this article is indeed, got lot better than before. Again, i don't mind mentioning negative facts in the article as long they are expressed in a NPOV way. while in the other hand, whitewashing is nothing but unnecessary --bowbowx

I'm not sure that it is was overly negative before? Insert-Belltower 01:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC) I'd like to add that just because an article, as this one, contains negative info, it doesn't mean it's biased one way or the other. Insert-Belltower 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update on Hate Crime

Apparently, Tifego had attempted to use Clery-Act reports to support his statement that NO hate crimes were committed on the UCR campus. I subsequently determined that the Clery-Act only includes VIOLENT hate crime, which accounts for why other resources report FIVE hate crimes total in 2004.

HOWEVER, the Sacramento Bee (a promiment newspaper), conducted a five-month investigation into the so-called Clery Act reporting by UC campuses. Here are a few excerpts from the article: "UC Irvine and UC Riverside failed to compile detailed crime statistics as required by federal law. Instead, the campuses used less-exhaustive FBI statistics."

"In some cases, crimes were miscategorized. UC Riverside police say men cannot be raped."

"Lance Gilmer, student conduct coordinator for UC Riverside, said he and his colleagues from other campuses are frustrated by administrative decisions to publish crime reports devoid of statistics collected by women's centers, residence halls and judicial affairs -- the campus office that rules on internal disciplinary cases. "Universities aren't reporting like they're supposed to, and we all know it," Gilmer said.

"Nowhere in the UC system are Clery violations so pronounced as at UC Riverside and UC Irvine. Over the last 10 years neither of the two schools compiled any Clery statistics, instead republishing FBI numbers."

"At UC Riverside in 1997, the man forced to perform oral sex on the campus track reported the crime to police. Instead of classifying the crime as a forcible sex offense, it was listed as an aggravated assault. The only explanation proferred by police: Men can't be raped, said Jack Chappell, campus spokesman. "That's unconscionable," said Carter, adding the law's definitions were not gender specific. "It's clearly a device the campus is using to get out of reporting a serious crime."

Link: http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/ucrape/ Clearly, using Clery Act data here is flawed because it constitutes gross underreporting. It is unacceptable to use Clery Act-based references to support a statement that NO hate crime (or even NO non-violent hate crime) occured on the UCR campus. UCRGrad 21:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that's cute. You are citing a six year old article. The statistics are being reported for 2002-2004. There have been no verified sources questioning the 2002, 2003, or 2004 statistics. Therefore, the OFFICIAL federal Governemnt Clery Act statistics will be put back in. Calwatch 03:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calm down folks!

Jeebus, what the heck is going on here?!?!? Man, I've never seen a university so utterly trashed before. And ironically enough, the person doing the most bashing is a UC Riverside grad himself (apparently, either that, or maybe he's a UC Berkeley grad pretending to be a Riverside grad in an attempt to sully Riverside's image).

C'mon, UC Riverside isn't THAT bad of a school. Now I grant you, Riverside is ranked in the 80s according to US News and World Report. It's admissions standards aren't the most stringent. But let's be honest, Riverside is STILL a decent academic school. You guys act as though Riverside's academics were on a junior college level. To put things in perspective, UC Riverside is ranked higher than LSU, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Tennessee, and Arizona State. I'd say Riverside is still better than the vast majority of universities out there.

Does UC Riverside really have that bad of a reputation? Is it b/c UC Riverside constantly has to be compared to and contrasted with the likes of UCLA and Berkeley?

The problem I'm having with these conversations is that it seems as people act as though if you graduate from Riverside, you will be a total failure in your life. If some of you felt this way, it's YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT. Don't blame UC Riverside for your lack of success and accomplishments. Maybe it's all because OF YOU. I can tell you that the school you attended only plays a very small part in the success of your life. The whole "the better the school's reputation, the more successful its alumni will be" is just a total MYTH perpetuated by bitter trolls from xoxohth and collegeconfidential.

I think it's important to list objective stats about UC Riverside, even if they do not always paint a pretty picture of Riverside. However, it's wrong to try to slam Riverside based on its stats. It's obvious much of the article (especially in regards to Riverside's academics) are basically an attempt to further destroy Riverside's name. I highly suspect the people doing this are USC/UCLA/Berkeley trolls who might even "fear" that UC Riverside might someday become a much better university. Either that, or I suppose that there are some disgruntled UC Riverside alumni posting here, obviously bitter that he wasn't able to get into a "better" university, but lets his bitterness destroy him to the point that he fails to take advantage of the resources and opportunities that ARE available at Riverside.

UCRGrad, let me ask you, if you went to UCLA, USC, or Berkeley, do you really feel that you would've been better off in life? Cause I can tell you I've met plenty of USC, UCLA, and UC Berkeley grads (and even Stanford grads) who are struggling and barely making it through life.

I still think there's potential for Riverside to be a great school. It'll take time, but please, it's not as worthless as many people here seem to claim. Thanks. Teknosoul02 22:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your remarks here, Teknosoul02.

1) Where in the article does it say that "if you graduate from Riverside, you will be a total failure in your life."

2) Interesting theories. While I'm sure it's possible that people fear that one day UCR will surpass UCLA and Berkeley, I somehow don't think this is a very likely motivation.

3) Please don't forget that almost HALF of students surveyed on StudentsReview.com would NOT return to UCR. Out of 351 universities, UCR ranked #12 for "unhappy students" in a 2004 publication by the Princeton Review. Perhaps that might give you an idea of why some students may not have such a glowing opinion of UCR. Nevertheless, I cannot speculate what motivations people have for making the edits that they make.

4) I am interested only in making this encyclopedia article accurate and comprehensive. I do not appreciate you insinuating that I am doing anything else.

UCRGrad 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Teknosoul02 23:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi UCRGrad, thanks for replying. A few of my own comments in response.

1.) Earlier versions of the article contained such statements as "UC Rejects" (they were edited out) STRONGLY imply that those who graduate from Riverside will be total failures in life (or at least total disappointments). Honestly, how would you feel if someone called you that? Isn't that just a bit belitting? There are other comments in the article itself (most of which were edited out and revised to make it more neutal, thankfully) that strongly insinuated that those who graduate from UC Riverside will be poorer and less inferior to those who went to USC/UCLA/Berkeley, etc. I felt that those statements were unfair and my point is that UC Riverside, even ranked in the mid-80s per US News rankings, is STILL a decent school and better than it's given credit for. Riverside has a higher ranking than some rather well known state schools w/ big time athletics (Oklahoma, LSU, Tennesse, Arizona State, etc.). Give Riverside some credit.

You might want to pull up the "UC Rejects" line in context. I believe it was alluding to the fact that many students at UCR were rejected from every single other UC, hence the name. It sounds like you agree that this is true, because you keep mentioning UCR students who wish they could have gone elsewhere but didn't get in. It is neither stated or implied that UCR graduates will be "total failures in life." May I suggest that you read what's there rather than making up your own interpretations. Thanks. UCRGrad 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

2.) Perhaps you're right. But I still strongly suspect that there are some xoxohth or collegeconfidential trolls who went to USC/UCLA/Berkeley are trying to hijack this article and make it as those Riverside really sucks as a university. I still speculate that they're doing this to make Riverside graduates feel inferior of themselves. Some trolls from USC/UCLA/Berkeley are truly pathetic that they have to make themselves feel better by belitting Riverside grads (hence, the UC Rejects comment).

Let me ask you something. Why would USC/UCLA/Berkeley trolls come to the UC RIVERSIDE article to make themselves better? Why not the UCI, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz, UC Santa Barabara, or UCSD articles? That doesn't make any sense. UCRGrad 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

3.) Studentsreview.com is not indicative of a school's overall reputation. Don't forget USC scored pretty low there too (apparently, according to that site, there were a TON of unhappy or disgruntled USC students/alumni). Georgia Tech too scored pretty low on studentsreview, as did Boston College, Carnegie Mellon, and UNC-Chapel Hill. A lot of schools scored low on studentsreview. Take it with a grain of salt.

Nobody said SR.com was indicative of a school's overall reputation. "Reputation rank" as reported by US News is better for that. UCRGrad 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As for Riverside itself, there are far WORSE schools out there then Riverside. I highly suspect that the reason many Riverside grads are so unhappy is that they are extremely bitter that they didn't get into a "better" university. These people are not helping themselves one bit. They are not taking advantage of the educational opportunities at Riverside to PROVE they can be good and do well both in school and the real world.

Maybe those who are unhappy/bitter about their experiences at Riverside should stop wishing that they could go to USC/UCLA/Berkeley and instead work to make themselves better by building job skills, etc. I said many times I know graduates from thise three schools who are very unhappy and struggling through life.

So you're now saying that UCR grads are unhappy and bitter? Every school has graduates who are "unhappy and struggling through life." I fail to see your poitn. UCRGrad 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is this fatally mistaken perception that going to a school with a brand name reputation is the ticket to an easy life. That perception is unfortunately reinforced by trolls from xoxohth and collegeconfidential. But if you're in UC Riverside, and you wish you could've gotten into say, USC, well at USC, you would likely wish you could've gotten into UCLA. Likewise, if you wish you could've gotten into Berkeley, and had the opportunity to transfer there, by the end, you'll probably be jealous of those who went to Stanford. Bitterness and jealously doesn't end just b/c you attained something "better" in your life. You'll only wish you had something more. I wish those who are angry and bitter about their experiences at Riverside will understand this.

This is not the forum or the context to debate what a "brand name reputation" does for your post-college prospects. If you want to start a debate, go to a college forum. UCRGrad 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teknosoul02 (talk • contribs).

I moved the rest to UCRGrad's talk page... –Tifego^(t) _{01:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)}

Tifego, I would like to request that you please do not move sections of the talk page over to people's personal TALK page without permission. Thanks. UCRGrad 22:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classroom size

Please explain why it's necessary to include the fact that the classrooms are "trailer-sized". You don't see any articles commenting on how large the classrooms are, and likewise there's no need to make an aside in the article on how tiny they are. Not in a section that's supposed to be talking about academics as opposed to choices of classroom architecture. –Tifego^(t) _{02:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)}

I think that the learning "environment" (for lack of a better word) is a key component of academics, as well as learning in general. The nature of one's classroom is reflective of the amount of seriousness and investment that an institution makes for its students. The fact that trailer-sized classrooms are utilized for the instruction of medical students (the future doctors of this country) is something that is completely unique for this institution and thus deserves recognition in this article. Insert-Belltower 03:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to use the term "trailers" rather than "trailer-sized classrooms," but I cannot find a specific enough citation. If medical students are going to receive HALF of their total medical instruction in facilities that consist of a trailer, then this is obviously noteworthy. The quality of a school's facilities is definitely pertinent to a university article. For instance, if we mentioned that UCR had a world-class swim team, but at the same time, the UCR swimming pool was actually an inflatable kiddie pond, then this would be important to mention. There is substantial information already included about the Thomas Haider program, almost all of which is glowingly positive. I can't see how you can complain about the usage of a single word, especially since it is 100% true (and referenced). If you would expect others not to nitpick your wording, I would expect the same. UCRGrad 05:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A firsthand look at the facilities would quickly disabuse doubters of the notion that the classrooms' size is anything but trailer-sized. In an effort to be more encyclopedic, shouldn't one welcome information that is true and verifiable? The statement itself doesn't make any value judgments about the classrooms, but leaves the readers free to draw their own conclusions. SoCalAlum 05:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not currently referenced. I don't see how the rest of that paragraph could be called "glowingly positive" but I never called that part negative, it's simply out of context. I don't care what size it says it is, the statement's position gives weight to something unrelated to the program being discussed, and fails to contrast it with the size of any other classrooms or buildings on campus. (Additionally, I would expect something more specific than "trailer-sized" to be used.) I moved it to its own paragraph, where it can be expanded upon and given context. –Tifego^(t) _{20:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)}

I respectfully disagree that this trailer comment is out of context, because it is speaking to the facilities that are unique for the program in Biomedial Sciences. Thus, it should be integrated into the paragraph describing the program. I think that it reasonable to make the statement more specific. Thank you for your suggestions. Insert-Belltower 22:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Kay

Stephanie Kay is a lecturer for the Dept. of English at UCR. Link Insert-Belltower 20:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• The article is 2 years old
• The article is posted and hosted by the very person it quotes. Conflict of interest? I think so. The New York Times doesn't quote the New York Times and then put it on your doorstep.
• The statistic isn't verified. It's just a person saying something. She's not a professor, she's a lecturer.
• Your wording is meant to imply that it's some sort of contradicition to have a CWR major and have the problem with basic English. The people who fail the writing exam aren't in the CW department and the connection implies that.

Deleting it. TheRegicider 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Regicider,

I appreciate you voicing your concerns about this piece of information. I would like to respond.

1. I will add the year 2004 to the statement, so the reader understands that this is recent, but not necessarily current.
2. I don't understand how this is a conflict of interest or how it being posted on a teachers site renders the statement invalid.
3. I don't think that you need full statistics when a representative of the English dept. makes this claim, and it also doesn't matter if she is a full professor, associate professor or lecturer. Because it is a single representative making this statement, I have attributed the quote to her. This was an excellent suggestion made by one of our colleagues assisting with the editing of this article.
4. The wording is not necessarily connected to the CWR, rather this statement is added to balance the beginning of the academic section. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the relationship you see with students failing the writing exam and not being in the CWR program at UCR or how this relates to the statement being discussed.

I hope this helps to clarify things a bit.

Thank you and have a great day. Insert-Belltower 00:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I edited to reflect these concerns:
2. There is no emperical evidence to back her claim. Working in the English department doesn't make you an authority on every student coming in, nor does it give you ultimate credibility when it comes to statistics. There is no backing for her claim other than her words. Thusly, it cannot be called a "fact"
3. Putting it in a sentence with the information about the Creative Writing program implies a correlation.
4. It's a little suspicious that the quote is hosted on the teachers website, it could have easily been manipulated it.

TheRegicider 03:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to jump in here. 1) Please let me remind you that the standard for references is the "verifiable source." The link Belltower used was published on the California Federation of Teachers website, which is sufficient. Wikipedia does not require authoritative or exhaustive references. Just verifiable sources.

2) Placing it in the sentence about Creative WRITING is the most logical places to put additional information about student WRITING abilities.

3) Unless you can find a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines for sources, it would not be acceptable for this information to be removed because "TheRegicider doesn't like it."

4) There is nothing wrong with a reference for 2004, 2003, 2003, 2001, or whatever, as long as the information hasn't been superceded or it violates Wikipedia's guidelines for appropriate sources. It is not acceptable for users to attempt to censor information they don't like on account of date alone.

5) It is cumbersome to say "so-and-so, a lecturer from XYZ, estimated...." ...if people want complete details, they can click on the reference.

Thanks. UCRGrad 22:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement and the source. From the edit history and the above conversation I suspect it had been significantly modified from its original or its most-acceptable form. However, the statement as it stood when I removed it completely misused the cited article. Yes, UCRGrad, it is necessary to state who provided the "statistic" as it is completely dishonest to quote the statistic as if it were a conclusion drawn by the source's author(s); it's just one quote from one person with NO cited evidence. I respect Ms. Kay's opinion but the statistic is unverifiable in the source given for it. Further, I disagree with the placement of the statement in the article. It seems clear to me if there aren't many UCR detractors there are certainly very vocal detractors. I suggest that you create a separate "Criticism" section in this article so you have a appropriate to fully lay out your (sourced and cited) criticisms. That approach has worked well on other article. The Harvard article is a good example of this approach. --ElKevbo 21:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business School

I really have to justify this? It's complete unethical to hold studies against UCR that make no mention of it. UCLA wasn't in "Regicider's Favorite Schools" can I throw that up there? Until the article implies that the Business School was in that Top 50 list, the citation is irrelevant. TheRegicider 01:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding how it is "unethical" to mention the Business Week article. Business Week listed the TOP 50 undergraduate business programs in the country, and UCR wasn't one of the top 50. This is VERY significant, because it implies that UCR's business program isn't recognized enough to be ranked. It would be inappropriate to include data about "Regicider's Favorite School's" because such a ranking is unimportant and insignificant. Business Week is a highly respected publication, and it used a rigorous methodology to make its rankings. It also qualifies as an authoritative source, whereas your example definitely does not. Perhaps you could suggest rephrasing the sentence? UCRGrad 01:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's unethical but it's certainly not worth mentioning. It's clearly placed in the article to impugn the reputation of the business school. It is literally a non-fact. If there are specific, cited criticisms of the business school then it may be appropriate to place them somewhere in the article. If it was specifically a goal of the institution to land its business school in this list then it may be appropriate to comment on it as a failed goal. But to simply mention that the school was not in the top 50 of a particular ranking is a disingenous smear tactic. --ElKevbo 21:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fat Girl

Greek life accounts for 4% of the school, so clearly it is not a big part of campus life. This picture was rightfully edited out of the article weeks ago. It's obviously an attempt to portray the school negatively, but putting a fat person in the article. We already have plenty of pictures, it provide no additional evidence. Gone. TheRegicider 01:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Regicider,

I am a bit surprised by comments calling this girl "fat." She might not be a supermodel, but she's definately not an object of disgust, and for you to characterize her as "an attempt to portray the school negatively" is absurd. The UCR Student Profiles didn't find her to fat to put on their page, which showed her as a representative of a sorority. While it is true that greek life accounts for 4% of the school it is relevant to include it in any university article. Insert-Belltower 01:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

4% is trivial for most schools, and is low for UC's, most of whom break into the low double digits. Calwatch 03:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Regicider,

1) First and foremost, I'm appalled by your comment that the picture is of a "fat girl." Tell us, are you some kind of ultra-attractive supermodel yourself? What gives you the right to judge what other people look like. How would you feel if you were that girl, and you saw this page, and someone from your own school referred to you as a "fat girl."

2) I don't see how you can argue that there is ANY attempt whatsoever to "portray the school negatively." UCR actually used this girl's photo on one of its recruiting pages - tell us, if UCR uses the same photo for recruitment purposes, are you suggesting that UCR was so dumb that they actually were portraying themselves negatively?

3) Comments and information pertaining to Greek life is prima facie relevant to a university article. This is just one of several "important" areas that should be included, and it falls under the broad category of "student life." It really doesn't matter if only 4% of students are in fraternities and sororities at UCR.

4) For these reasons, I am restoring the photo. I would expect you to address these issues before reverting, otherwise, your action would be unreasonable. Thanks! UCRGrad 20:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The article has plenty of pictures already, 4% isn't relevant enough to justify an additional one. We've already got 7 pictures in the article without it. Check the archive, the reasons for it's deletion were already explained by someone else. Your restoration of it, is in fact, the unreasonable action. I'm saying the girl's picture adds nothing to the article except a false impression of Greek life on campus. Go ahead and mention that only 4% of campus is in a frat, but we don't need a picture to do. Thanks! TheRegicider 21:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that US News & World Report has the Greek membership rate at 7%, not 4% [1]. To the best of my knowledge and in my experience, that's still very low for a typical American campus. If someone cares to look up the national or even just the California average rates of Greek membership, then the fact that this is (presumably) so low in comparison might be notable. Whether or not that warrants inclusion of a particular photograph is another discussion (which is quite silly and one in which I don't care to further participate). --ElKevbo 21:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A few things: 1) There are no rules that dictate what percentage of students must be affected before a picture is appropriate or not. Therefore, it is not valid to argue that since only 4-7% of students are Greek, we shouldn't put a picture of a sorority girl on the page.

2) Just because the sorority girl photo was deleted a few weeks ago, does NOT mean that it was deleted appropriately. Anyone can delete things here, but NOT everyone can justify it. It is expected that people justify their deletions.

3) Nobody has a problem with deletions, as long as they can be justified...and appropriate justification is not making up some hand-waving irrelevant reason. Justification would be establishing lack of relevance or violation of wiki policies, for example.

UCRGrad 00:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the picture. But I DO care about the changes I made in good faith, fully justified on the Talk page, which you reverted. Address the issues - don't dodge them. This article has some very poor writing which is unjustifiably negative towards UCR. Again, I suggest moving those negative accusations into a section of their own so as to make the article more organized and more NPOV. I'm reverting my edits once in the hopes that you will actually address them instead of waving your hand at them. --ElKevbo 01:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The specific points made by UCRgrad have not been addressed. Insert-Belltower 14:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations are not a substitute for addressing another user's arguments. Insert-Belltower 19:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, look at your Userpage, it's a reality. The fact of the matter is you were prove to have used sockpuppets. Thusly, your motives are questioned and intentions hallowed. You have yet to address a single one of the concerts ElKevbo put worth, so I have reverted your changes. His edits were justified, explained and common sense. The NPOV means that changes must be made to reach consenus, and in preventing change you become part of the problem, not the solution. Do not put those remarks back in. Thanks! TheRegicider 20:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not been "proven" to have sockpuppets or that I used use them. You are making this about me, which is in violation of Wiki rules. Insert-Belltower 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Look in your profile my friend. Anyways the arguement for their removal has clearly prevailed. Do not revert them back. TheRegicider 18:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel laureates

I removed the phrase stating that UCR has no Nobel laureates on the faculty. It's a non-fact. Given the limited number of Nobel laureates, most colleges and universites will not have any on the faculty. It's presented here as a negative when it's really not. I'm sure the other UC campuses are justifiably proud of their Nobel laureates but to use that fact to attempt to smear UCR is wrong. Creating irrelevant lists of things the campus doesn't have isn't at all helpful or informative. --ElKevbo 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that UCR does not have any Nobel laureates makes the the campus distinct from the other UC's (excluding Merced), and thus the statement should absolutely be included in the article. Furthermore, I don't think that this is necessarily a "negative" statement in this context, and even so it wouldn't be a valid reason to remove it. No smear campaign exists here and there is no evidence to support such a claim. Insert-Belltower 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a non-fact, it doesn't deserve to be in. It's pre-emptively addressing assumptions that no one has proven exist. You don't get to put in "UCR does not have any best-selling authors on campus" because no one implied that the school does. Clearly a smear campaign exists, or you would have used multiple aliases, with fake personalities to put information into the article. TheRegicider 20:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

-I disagree. It is a FACT and it should be mentioned. I don't understand your comment about "UCR does not have any best-selling authors on campus." If that were the case, and all the other UC's did have at least one best-selling author, it would then be worthwhile to say. Insert-Belltower 19:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You disagreeing isn't enough to override 3 other people who have put forth more compelling arguements for it's deletion. It's a slipperly slope and the article would never end if we began recording everything the school DIDN'T have. It's unreasonable to include the fact that the school doesn't have any Nobel scholars, because it's a rarity to begin with. Should the UCLA article say that "the campus, unlike UCR, does not have a NASA scientist as chancellor"? Of course not, you don't hold something like that against a school. Thus far, you've made no case for your arguement other than the fact that you want it there. Gone. THANKS! TheRegicider 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That information is already in the main University of California article. So it could be deleted, or it could stay. I lean towards the blurb going, though. Calwatch 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

TheRegicider is right - your disagreement alone is not enough to warrant removing or including anything. Wikipedia, for better or worse, is governed by consensus. And on this particular issue there appears to be a consensus on removing the statement. The mere fact that is a fact (how's that for a confusing little statement?) doesn't mean it warrants inclusion in this or any other article. If it were a glaring omission from the UCR campus (in general or in comparison to other UC campuses) or if it had some major detrimental affect on the quality of the campus I would support its inclusion. This particular fact does neither. --ElKevbo 20:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with everyone above in favor of keeping the statement out. There is no need to mention a non-fact. --Coolcaesar 20:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The majority opinion is not necessarily the correct one. For instance, in 19th century America, it was majority opinion that Blacks should be slaves. It was only through careful deliberation by justices of the Supreme Court that the CORRECT opinion (that Blacks should NOT be slaves) was enforced over the MAJORITY opinion. Naturally, if 10 freshmen from the A-I dorm decide to "vote" here, you're going to see a natural skewing here. UCRGrad 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, this is exactly like slavery and you're the Supreme Court. Ironically, my friend, it's key to remember that the SCOTUS decides opinions through a majority rule system. You've yet to address the concerns in sufficent manner. TheRegicider 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. You have really address UCRgrad's points or mine. Insert-Belltower 02:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been observing this debate re: Nobel prize winners. Not to get involved in the flaming, it seems to me that whether the absence of Nobel prize-winners on UCR's faculty is noted or not, it is ultimately not as meaningful an issue as the fact that UCR undergraduate education has actually produced someone who went on to earn the Nobel prize in any field. As far as I understand, UCR undergrad beats out Stanford undergrad in that respect.--Amerique 19:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate Deletions

I am concerned that there have been several inappropriate deletions here for less-than-rigorous reasons. One of the arguments that has been thrown around is a concept termed the "non-fact," which describes the absence of something. Unfortunately, a "non-fact" is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. If you read the Wikipedia policies, you will NOT find a restriction on the so-called "non-fact." For instance, the "non-fact" information that there are NO Nobel laureates at UCR is naturally relevant to a UNIVERSITY. The number of Nobel laureates at a university gives an idea of the caliber of its faculty. Most other UC's have Nobel-winning professors. Their absence at UCR is clearly notable. It is not meant as a "smear-tactic," as was insinuated previously, but it is a RELEVANT FACT. I could see how if this was an article on horse breeding, it would be silly to mention Nobel-prize winners...but the fact that we are talking about faculty and academic institutions IS relevant. I will also point out that nobody had a problem with the section of notable alumni that lists UCR graduates who ultimately received a Nobel Prize - clearly, information related to Nobel laurates is important. Thus, pointing out the absence of certain aspects of a school is acceptable when it provides useful information and is relevant to a UNIVERSITY article.

Similarly, when mentioning a unique program at UCR (like business admin), it is relevant to also consider the CALIBER of the program. It is not enough just to say "UCR has a business admin program"...to have a truly exceptional encyclopedia article, we must also give an idea of how well-regarded the program is. Now Business Week's Top 50 UNDERGRAD business rankings is a probably a gold-standard for ranking these programs, with methodology superior to US News. The fact that the UCR program ranks below the top 50 gives an idea of where the program ranks. Thus, it provides useful information, and it was erroneous to delete. I realize that not all of UCR's programs can be at the top, but that doesn't mean we should attempt to conceal information about their lower stature either. UCRGrad 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you on all accounts. I am trying to assume good faith and keep an open mind but it is very difficult when you and Insert-Belltower refuse to discuss changes or attempt to reach consensus and continue to make edits which discard the thoughts and opinions of other editors. Once again, if you believe you have legitimate negative facts to presentabout this institution I recommend organizing them into a separate section, just as done in several other university articles. I'll try one more time to point out specific problems with the issues you raise above:

1) I will ignore your violation of WP:AGF. I could easily make the exact same complaint right back at your camp.

2) Unless you can prove that these university articles are gold-standard formats to follow, nobody is under any obligation to "move" negative facts to a separate section.

UCRGrad 23:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed you or anyone else are under any obligation to follow the example set by other articles. It was merely a friendly suggestion - take it or leave it as you will. --ElKevbo 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

1)Lack of Nobel laurates is no indication of the caliber of a university's faculty. There are simply too few of them for every university to have even one. Further, there are many other prizes other than the Nobel prize which indicate excellence in a particular field; the Turing Award and the Peabody Award are two that spring to my mind immediately. If you can provide evidence to the contrary (such as a university being derided, having funding taken away, being stripped of its accreditation, etc.) then I will accept your assertion. IF you were to make a firm stand on the "every UC campus except UCR and the brand new Merced have one" AND you could prove it, then that might be a legitimate argument. I would still disagree with its inclusion in the UCR article as being irrelevant but it's a better argument than the one you are currently making.

1) It is not reasonable to argue that "there are simply too few Nobel laureates for every university to have one." Top universities have many Nobel laureates. MOST UC campuses have Nobel laureates on its faculty. Thus, mentioning the absence of nobel laureates provides an appropriate distinction between UC campuses of higher caliber. UCRGrad 23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There have only been 776 Nobel Prizes awarded. Even if all award recipients were alive and teaching in the United States, there wouldn't be enough of them to teach at the 2687 (2004 IPEDS data]) 4-year, degree-awarding colleges and universities in the United States and its territories. Are you going to argue that over 70% of United States colleges and universities are deficient or inferior because they lack a Nobel laureate on the faculty? I defy you to find a reputable source which asserts that a Nobel laureate is necessary for a quality faculty. --ElKevbo 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with your numbers. UC Riverside is classified as a "national university," in that it offers Masters and Ph.D. degrees (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankindex_brief.php). It would be irrelevant and unfair to compair UCR to other college classifications, such as master's universities, or liberal arts colleges. Nobody considers the presence/absence of Nobel laureates at these other types of colleges. As such, there are 248 National Universities, and using your numbers, 776 nobel prizes should be plenty to go around. I will also reiterate that most other UC's have Nobel laureates on THEIR faculty. Thus, you cannot argue that because there have only been 776 Nobel Prizes, there "aren't enough to go around." Furthermore, I never stated (nor is it necessary to prove) that Nobel laureates are required in order to have a quality faculty. I will, however, argue that the number of Nobel laureates on your faculty is a surrogate indicator of things like prestige, financial resources, academic reputation, etc. Finally, I will say that the number of AAAS faculty members is probably less important and/or useful. UCRGrad 02:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

2) The Nobel Prize is perhaps the ultimate academic distinction, whereas the Turing and Peabody Awards are lesser-known and less-prestigious. This is why it is appropriate to mention the NOBEL. UCRGrad 23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize is only awarded in limited fields. Are Computer Scientists unable to attain the pinnacle of their career because their field did not exist when Alfred Nobel died? Further, the Nobel prizes, excluding the Peace Prize (for obvious reasons on which I hope we can agree in this context), is awarded for scientific and academic achievement. Tenure-track faculty are typically measured in three areas: teaching, service, and research. Note that the Nobel prize is not awarded for teaching or service (again, excluding the Peace Prize). Therefore it is not a reliable measure of the overall quality of any particular faculty member, much less a faculty body. It is certainly prestigious but it is not applicable as a measure of quality or, conversely, its absence is absolutely not an indication of a lack of quality. --ElKevbo 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize is awarded for a great accomplishment and contribution to mankind, and it just slightly eclipses the importance of things such as teaching/service by a faculty member. On the other hand, I think it goes without saying that in research-fields, a Nobel Prize is the ultimate award for research. Furthermore, you cannot argue that the Nobel Prize is irrelevant because it is "awarded in limited fields," especially since the AAAS figure is for SCIENCE ONLY and is even MORE limited in scope! Again, the number of Nobel laureates on your faculty is a surrogate indicator of things like prestige, financial resources, academic reputation, etc, but not necessarily "teaching quality" (which I will stipulate). However, none of your arguments here really pan out. UCRGrad 02:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

3) We mention AAAS fellows in this article...this is much more obscure than the Nobel. If we do not mention the Nobel-prize, it then follows that we realy shouldn't bother mentioning AAAS-faculty either.

UCRGrad 23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The AAAS is certainly not obscure in academia in the United States. I assert that its mention is entirely appropriate as it is factual in nature, supported by citations, and entirely relevant to the article in the context in which is presented. To clarify: the presence of AAAS fellows indicates a level of academic achievement by the faculty. The absence of Nobel prizes does not indicate a lack of academic achievement or ability. The inverse of a logical statement is not necessarily true.--ElKevbo 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The AAAS is definitely more obscure than the Nobel Prize, especially to laypeople and individuals not involved in science fields. Like the AAAS information, the Nobel Prize information is also "factual in nature, supported by citations, and entirely relevant to the article in the context in which it is presented." The absence of a Nobel Prize does not indicate specific lack of academic achievement, but it DOES demonstrate lack of academic achievement at the most prestigious level - that which earns a Nobel Prize. This is important. And it DOES separate UCR from the higher-tiered UC's that DO have Nobel-laureates on their faculties. UCRGrad 02:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

2)The absence of a program on some magazine's "Top __" list is no indication of the program's quality or lack thereof. Conversely, placement on such a list is no indication of the program's quality. It's simply an indication that the program meets or does not meet whatever standards (sometimes unpublished) of the particular magazine. Those rankings are notorious for being fickle and generally of little worth in academia. In the United States, accreditation is the final measure of the bottom line "Is it good?" criteria for a college or university. Discipline-specific accrediation (for example, NCATE for education) provides another measure, although it differs by discipline as to whether or not that measure is a bottom-line measure like regional accreditation or a higher mark which some programs fail or choose not to meet (and not always because they can not; there are many valid reasons to not seek discipline-specific accrediation). --ElKevbo 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This argument is invalid because using this same faulty logic, we should not use rankings from US News, because it is "some magazine" and "placement on such a list" is "no indication of the program's quality...it's simply an indication that the program meets or does not meet whatever standards (sometimes unpublished) of the particular magazine...those rankings are notorious fo rbeing fickle and generally of little worth in academia." Actually, Business Week is a very highly-regarded magazine journal in the business world, and its publication is authoritative. You obviously haven't read the article, because contrary to what you implied, the methodology WAS published, and it provided a numerical rankings, not just a "list." Your reasons are therefore not valid. Finally, may I remind you that UCR's graduate (not undergrad) business program was NOT accredited up until several years ago. UCRGrad 23:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would have no problems with removing the US News & World Report rankings from this and every other university article in Wikipedia. They're quite silly and their faults are well known and documented. But I lack consensus to do so and therefore I won't remove them. But your argument is a red herring. Including a ranking is most certainly not the same thing as including a non-ranking. There are many lists and rankings in which UCR does not appear. Shall we list all of them? No, because it's silly and uninformative. To do so implies that the institution *should* or *aspires* be on the list or ranking. If that is the case, please cite a source indicating so. Otherwise, the statement should remain out of the article.

If the graduate business program was not accredited (particularly by a regional accrediting body) for some particular reason and not because it was new, then that might be worth mentioning. Unless the program was new, lack of (regional) accreditation is a pretty serious matter. --ElKevbo 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you stipulate that it is appropriate to include rankings by well-regarded publications, then I ask you this. What if UCR's business program was ranked #49 in Business Week? Well, Business Week would be JUST as rigorous a source as US News, so out of consistency, we should be able to include the figure of #49. Well, it just so happens that UCR ranked BELOW #50...therefore it is ranked somewhere beyond #50. Thus, mentioning that UCR was ranked beyond #50 in undergrad business should be perfectly appropriate, given that we are mentioning the equivalent of an approximate rank (beyond #50). Therefore, I don't see a problem with mentioning this fact at all! With regard to accreditation, I do not know why its MBA program was not accredited before, but it is at the present. UCRGrad 02:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thus far 5 people have weighed in against the placement of non-facts. You don't just get to re-insert them as you wish. Your argument is incorrect. Just because Wiki standards don't specifically mention "non-facts" do not automatically make them ok. Numerous people have expressed strong objections to them, thusly they will remain out of the article. The only bad deletions here are on your part. You've consistently reverted edits after extensive debates lead to their removal. Do not do it again. Thanks! TheRegicider 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Just because 5 users make seemingly strong arguments, does NOT mean that their camp is correct. On the contrary, most of these arguments are easily invalidated. 2) I have done nothing of what you state above. On the other hand, you accused me of reverting a "weeks worth of edits," when in fact, all I did was restore a sentence that someone else erroneously deleted. UCRGrad 23:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it is worth mentioning that UC Riverside has "no Nobel Laureates" on its faculty. How many universities have Nobel Laureates on its faculty? I venture very few, and perhaps only the very best. Again, this is an attempt to try to make UC Riverside look bad. And again, STOP COMPARING UC RIVERSIDE TO THE OTHER UCs. What's the point? Let UC Riverside be its own school. Focus on what makes UC Riverside UNIQUE. I'm sorry, but I see obvious attempts to bring UC Riverside down. Do you seriously feel inadequate about your education you got at UC Riverside that you are trying to sully the school's name? What's the point? EVERY SCHOOL HAS ITS SHORTCOMINGS. If you are gonna mention that UC Riverside has no Nobel Laureates on its faculty, then we should edit every article for each school that has no Nobel Laureates to make this point. Why is it that UC Riverside graduates feel sorry for themselves b/c they go to the "least reputable" UC Riverside school? This bitter and sorry-for-yourself attitude will not get yourself far in life.

As for UC Riverside's business program not being in the Top 50, I will venture that virtually all the California State University schools have undergrad business programs that aren't in the Top 50. Shouldn't we make that a point in all the articles for those respective schools? Okay, so just b/c UC Riverside is a UC school, it has to live up to the UC name, right? UC Riverside either has to be prestigious like Berkeley, of it is deemed unworthy of the UC name, yes? Give me a break. Teknosoul02 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration but please don't stoop to personal attacks or namecalling. --ElKevbo 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of Sorority Girl

I'm going to go ahead and put it back up, as long as nobody has a valid objection. I have already addressed the issue of Greek life being only 7% of the campus. Again, it is not valid to remove something BECAUSE it only pertains to 4-7% of students...otherwise, you could use the same faulty reasoning to argue for the removal of the UCR/UCLA medical program, which only pertains to 48 students (less than 1% of students). UCRGrad 22:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A valid objection has already been raised numerous, numerous times. The article has enough pictures. TheRegicider 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually believe that all of the objections have been adequately addressed. "the article has enough pictures" is no more valid an argument than "this article has enough text" as a reason not to make any more changes. Therefore, if you believe that there are outstanding reasonable arguments, I'd like to hear them. UCRGrad 23:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has any major objections, I will put the picture back up. Insert-Belltower 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creative writing

UCRGrad: The source you recently provided for the "over 60% of incoming freshmen were found to be not ready for college-level reading and writing" statment is *much* better than the previous one. Thank you! However, I still have a question. I don't understand the relevance of the "over 60%..." statement to the (perceived) problem with the Creative Writing course. Bluntly, I don't see an immediate connection between some students, presumably qualified, taking Creative Writing classes and others taking remedial courses. Are you asserting that Creative Writing courses should be cancelled and remedial courses offered in their place? You may have a valid point but I am having difficulty seeing it. Please help me and explain. Thanks! --ElKevbo 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This was the most logical place to put it. If we are mentioning UCR's unique major offered to writers, we might also want to mention that UCR has a rather large percentage of incoming students who cannot actually read or write at the college-equivalent level. UCRGrad 02:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? --ElKevbo 02:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Because if we are to mention the English Department, then we should do so comprehensively. We shouldn't just sound like a recruitment brochure and speak exclusively about the "fantastic and unique Creative Writing Program," but we should write as EXPERTS on UC Riverside and incorporate all the relevant information we have. As "UCR experts," we know that a truly rigorous and comprehensive article would have the "real deal," and not just the "sugar-coated" version of the story. That's why. UCRGrad 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

But what does the reading or writing level of incoming freshman have to do with the English department or the Creative Writing program? If they're incoming freshmen, then by definition they haven't even been exposed to the English department much less taken an English course at UCR. Lack of preparation for college can not be laid at the doorsteps of colleges - that blame properly rests with secondary and primary education (and, more likely, those that control and fund them). In that light, I again ask: What does this statistic have to do with the Creative Writing program? --ElKevbo 06:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Lack of preparation for college can not be laid at the doorsteps of colleges - that blame properly rests with secondary and primary education (and, more likely, those that control and fund them)."

-That is an absolutely true statement in my opinion, however it is the college's responsibility to select and admit freshman with the necessary skills in order that they might be successful in more advanced studies. For example, if a university admitted students that could only do basic math (i.e. sums, division, etc) what would be the point the school offering courses in calculus or linear algebra-- those course would be way above those students' comprehension! The school has to teach at the the level where students can do the work-- a school can't fail 90% of the class. Indeed colleges/universities have methods to judge HS students abilities. Thus the relevance of this statistic on writing directly speaks to how well UCR selects "prepared" students for college level courses and gives the article more encyclopedic detail. Insert-Belltower 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I'll also add that when 60% of your incoming freshmen can't write standard college English, they don't suddenly become Pulitzer-prize winners after taking remedial coursework. This means that freshmen-level college English courses are going to be populated by these students who just "graduated" from remediation -- you can already surmise at what level the course will be taught. This lowers the standards for those students who are already good writers, but are required to take freshmen English to satisfy requirements for their major.

I'll also point out that TheRegicider deleted the reference because he claimed it was from 1999. This is the latest report in this particular area published by the state. However, it is inappropriate to remove information unless you have evidence that it is no longer valid. There are references all over wikipedia that are from before 1999. Are we to delete them as well? Of course not. A better reason to remove this information about incoming freshmen English performance will need to be provided, rather than an arbitrary one. UCRGrad 15:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with ElKevbo that the inclusion of information relating to freshman performance levels does not have direct bearing in a paragraph introducing the various academic departments of the university. The information provided could, and should, be discussed in a section devoted to "student" relevant topics such as incoming SAT/ACT scores, demographics, etc. --Amerique 20:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a MUCH better place to put it. I'll move it. Thanks. UCRGrad 01:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey UCRGrad, I found this interesting bit of information re: the resignation of the English dept. chair over UCR's handling of the composition program, that sounds pertinent to your arguments here. (the highlander archive is messed up, but if you scroll to the bottom of the page you can still read and perhaps cite the article if you want:

http://www.highlander.ucr.edu/article.php?artnum=3973

Best,--Amerique 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

It's clear there are several disagreements which are not being resolved to anyone's satisfaction. I recommend we call a truce, cease editing the article for a bit, and look into one of the mediation options such as an Request for Comment. What say ye? --ElKevbo 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree to mediation, and here's why. At first glance, it may seem that some of the concerns may make sense. That is, people are not used to reading ANY negative information in a university article. Thus, the presence of these facts, no matter how true and accurate and representative they are, will likely to be misconstrued as bias. Ultimately, I believe that I can justify inclusion of this information to any neutral third party; however, it will require that I (and others in my camp) start from square one, from the very beginning, re-explaining over and over why XYZ should be included and why it is 100% appropriate.

I also see this plea for mediation as a sign of frustration from opposing parties that are no longer able to provide counterarguments to those I and others have provided. It is much easier to appeal to a 3rd party and start over than to concede that perhaps you weren't 100% correct on the issue. I understand where these individuals are coming from -- your gut feeling is that there is bias. Your gut tells you XYZ statement doesn't belong...however, I'd like to think that the content of Wikipedia should be regulated by rational ideas and argument, not by ones arbitrary "gut" feeling. I do not believe that resorting to mediation will help...I have always been a reasonable person. If a reasonable counterargument is provided on an issue, then of course I will acquiese. UCRGrad 02:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I disagree. I'm asking around to figure out what the best course of mediation is for us. We're not getting anywhere and are as far apart as when we started. I'm sorry you disagree with this action but I believe some more experienced, neutral third parties might help us break this stalemate and edit war. --ElKevbo 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In contrast, I think that this article is making progress in a very encyclopedic direction. I am pleased with the changes and additions made so far, and I am willing to consider the viewpoints of others. Compromises have already been made and will continue to be made as long as we discuss things in a civil manner. I think this "not getting anywhere" perception you have is derived from uncivil conduct by some members of this board whose debating methods rely primarily on personal attacks and intentional avoidance to address sound points made by the other camp. Thus, mediation, at this point, is unnecessary because I believe we can work though these issues on our own. Insert-Belltower 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that mediation is needed. Though new to the discussion, I have been watching the proceedings and I am amazed at the arguments. The negative bias is very strong. There is such opposition to change that the article is stagnating in the content that it provides to users of wikipedia. Small changes are impossible to get implemented while the quarreling continues over a simple picture, it is ridiculous. Until these fights can be resolved, the page will not improve at all. If you are opposed to third party intervention, (How could it hurt the article?) then you are a part of the problem. --jahamal 23:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. I was a little disturbed that people would oppose placing a picture of a UCR sorority girl in the article. I wish that you, and others like you, would actually explain where exactly this idea of "negative bias" is coming from, rather than merely stating this as a mere opinion. I think ultimately, things like that would help things along. Nevertheless, I think that doing even the most innocent bystander can click back on the history to several months ago and realize that this article has indeed made multitudes of progress. To say otherwise is the wrong attitude, and with such a negative outlook, how can we expect to move forward? UCRGrad 02:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, looking back, I believe the logs are much more in favor of the other side. Second, you did not respond to the general call for mediation of a third party. Following your logic, which is ever so apparent in your posts, this means you must agree that a third party is a good idea. It can hurt nothing, and if the article is fine as is now, than the moderator will obviously side with you. However, I do not believe this to be the case, and I still want to see mediation. The arguements have been made for both sides, and I do not feel that explaining what a negetive bias is and how this article can be described as such. It has been over argued on this forum, and if you cannot figure out were the negetive bias is coming from, and that is only the opinion of the other side, than all hope is lost in trying to resolve this with you, making mediation all the more important. --jahamal 03:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you scroll up a few paragraphs, you will see that I indeed DID respond to the "general call for mediation for a third party." I declined. Insert Belltower also declined. We stated our reasons. I think one of the major problems is that there is a general belief that I am unwilling to compromise. That is clearly not the case. Please re-read the section I have written on "compromise." Since you are also new, please also refer to sections I have written on differentiating between the so-called "negative bias" and "inclusion of negative facts," the latter of which is okay (you are probably confusing them). Thanks. UCRGrad 13:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you have so eloquently told me to reread your previous post, so to will I tell you to reread all posts prior to this. You will plainly see well constructed arguements on all of the topics you say are not supported, or never have been articulated. You still obviously cannot read my posts yet either. I raised the question, How can it hurt this article to have a third party get involved? Please do a little reading and all this should be cleared up soon. I am very in favor of third party mediation, now more than ever. --jahamal 15:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you, I am not a newcomer. I have read everything that has been written here, in discussion, as well as in the article. I have made a good faith effort to respond to all issues brought up, including the one you have repeated. I have re-read what I wrote previously (and asked you to read) and you will find the answer to your question from my response a few paragraphs up. At any rate, it really doesn't help to ask someone to re-read previous posts, when I've already answered the very question you are asking. Since you are new, may I suggest that you follow this thread a little longer before trying to contribute, since you've demonstrated that you've only been following along superficially. Also, instead of criticizing the article and the editors, perhaps it might be more helpful to suggest changes and WHY - because I am assuming you're trying to help. UCRGrad 15:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, so, I am still very unclear how your previous post answered my question, How can mediation hurt? I must keep missing it because all you talk about is how it is a sign of frustration, and how you do not want to reargue your points. Nothing here says, Mediation will hurt this article. Please refrain from assuming what I have read and what I have not read. I have been following the thread for a long time, just not posting, seeing the futility in it. So please, refrain from bashing my knowledge on the subject, I have actually read the archives, and I still hold my position. This article is stagnating, and is not getting better, third party intervention is needed to help resolve it. My suggestion to make this article better is to get an outside observer to help. Mediation is my suggested change, I am sorry that you totally missed my point. I guess looking to resolve disputes is not what will make this article better in your eyes, in which case this arguing will continue and nothing will get done. --jahamal 17:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Typically in Wikipedia, if you want to specifically address something I've written (like my reasoning as to why I do not accept mediation), you should quote what I've written and respond directly to it. In this case, I have provided numerous reasons as to why I do not feel that mediation is a) necessary and b) acceptable to me. If you just want to say that you support mediation and you have nothing else to contribute, I think you've already made your opinion clear. Thanks. UCRGrad 19:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am not being clear enough. 1) The article is not gaining positive ground and will not become better in the foreseeable future at this rate. Neither side is going to win, the article will just be a bloody battleground of arguements, which is bad. 2) I would like to know specific reasons as to why mediation is bad for this article, not why you do not want it. I want a reason as to how mediation would hurt the status quo. I have not been adressing things you said in particular, I want a clearer picture of your arguement, hence the question. Currently in my eyes, mediation is a good and can only help the article. If there are no negetive impacts, as of now, no negetive impacts on the article have been raised, then mediation should be sought out. I guess I will have to articulate my arguements in a much more obvious way in the future. I hope to see your response so that I may atttempt to adress any concerns you have about the damage to the article if mediation is pursued. --jahamal 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

This morning, I had some time to sit down and read the entire article again from scratch, and it occured to me that the article has made tons of progress over the past couple of months. If the newcomers would only click through the history, you'll find that there have been a multitude of changes, and the article quality has improved dramatically. Perhaps it was only more recently, when extreme users began to make sweeping deletions to some of my contributions that I began to be more defensive. I am a very reasonable person. For instance, when somebody disagreed with including information about Princeton Review about poor teaching quality, I defended its inclusion. However, when that same individual argued that we should also include information from Princeton Review about how UCR was one of its "best in the west" schools, I had NO objection - because this is perfectly reasonable. On the other hand, there have been several unreasonable individuals here who have made deletions and reverts for hand-waving and arbitrary reasons. Some of these individuals have only contributed minimally and superficially to the discussion, yet have been most-aggressive in censoring the article. It's these kinds of actions that make it difficult for the article to progress. People in my camp have to spend time undoing their damage, etc. Contrary to what some people insinuate, I am not here to "give UCR a bad name" or to "trash UCR." I am offended every time somebody writes that here. Wikipedia relies on so-called "experts" who are highly knowledgable in specific subjects. I have extensive knowledge about UCR, and I am well-read on the literature available on the University. Anyone can copy over website information and pictures from a brochure, but only "experts" can provide complete and comprehensive information about a subject. That is why I am here. I can understand how UCR students, graduates, and affiliates might object to the inclusion of ANY information that may portray the school in a negative light. To some, "negative facts" is synonymous with "bias" and it has been difficult for them to differentiate between the two. As I always try to reinforce, they are NOT the same. "Negative facts" are important to an article, when pertinent, and can actually be portrayed with positive bias, negative bias, or completely neutral. Others have revealed that they would like to see only positive facts features in the UCR article, in the interest of promoting the school and improving its stature. While I agree that this would be a good idea for promotional materials and recruitment websites, these goals are not necessarily the mission of Wikipedia. We are trying to provide an informative, well-written, and comrehensive information resource...and this requires that we strive to include pertinent information, whether or not it makes "UCR look good." I have always been willing to comromise, and I am confident that we can meet a middle ground. There have been a few more reasonable individuals surfacing lately, and I am willing to engage in dialogue with those people. On the other hand, there are a few individuals who adamantly believe that NO negative facts should be included -- those users are, by definition, NOT willing to compromise, and I would prefer not to interact with them anymore. The UC Riverside article has made fantastic progress so far, and I think that as long as all parties are patient and willing to continue to discuss the issues, the article will continue to be imroved. Thanks. UCRGrad 16:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I know you'll be surprised, but I once again disagree (really, I'm not trying to make a career of saying "I disagree with you!"). I've looked over the history of edits made by yourself and Insert-Belltower and I disagree with many of them. I don't see us reaching a middle ground - all I see are the same points being made and remade and no progress being made towards compromise. Look at the history of this article - most of the recent edits are simple reverts because one side doesn't like what the other did. I completely disagree that this article has made "fantastic progress;" I think most of that "progress" has actually been very negative (both in the contents of the article and, more importantly, its quality).

I certainly don't believe that negative facts should be excluded from any article. I simply believe that many "facts" that have been added to this article are inappropriate, dishonest, or just plain wrong. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask a neutral third party to help us work out our differences and I don't understand how anyone could object to that idea. Finally, it may be worth noting that I have no connection to UCR. I try to keep an eye on recent changes to university and other school articles as they are frequent targets of vandalism and academic boosterism. This is the only article I've ever seen "negative academic boosterism" and I'm utterly perplexed by it. --ElKevbo 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it sounds like you are making the following points: 1) You don't agree with many of the edits by myself and IB 2) You don't see us reaching a middle ground, rather, you believe that the same points will be made and remade without progress 3) You believe that the progress have been very negative 4) You believe that many facts that have been added are inappropriate, dishonest, or just plain wrong 5) You don't understand why I would object to a 3rd party helping 6) You are concerned because this university article does not resemble other university articles that you've read.

In response by number: 1) You have the right to disagree...but do you have any other reason besides your "gut" feeling that something is wrong? Like I said, I am perfectly reasonable. If you have a valid and supported argument as to why something should be removed, why on earth would I do anything to block it???

2) With that attitude, you virtually guarantee that we won't reach a middle ground.

3) Again, with that attitude, how are we supposed to continue progress with this article?

4) I have yet to see you truly explain how a single fact is "inappropriate, dishonest, or just plain wrong." Inappropriate is a matter of opinion unless you can justify it. Dishonest?? How? Did I make up data? Did I make up a reference? And what about "Just plain wrong." What, did I misplace a decimal point? Did I say 50% instead of 5%?? Whenever you have brought up a problem, I have either addressed it or fixed it. These remarks of your seems to come out of nowhere.

5) Perhaps you should re-read my response then under "mediation." You might also want to read IB's response if you're still having trouble understanding. Finally, I will add that in addition, mediation is unnecessary because the article has been making good progress. You've only been editing this article for 1-2 weeks -- that's why you can't see this.

6) This university article is unique because it isn't written exclusively by students/administrators that are affiliated with the school - that is why you don't see only carefully-lifted "stunning facts" that come from recruitment material and the website. As a "UCRGrad," I have extensive first-hand experience about the school's academics, student life, reputation, etc. and I am very familiar with relevant publications in the media and by well-regarded organiations. That is why you are reading true and comprehensive information about UCR, and not a photocopy of the recruitment pamphlet. UCRGrad 20:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)