Talk:University of California, Los Angeles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of Universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	This article is part of WikiProject Southern California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Southern California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

University of California, Los Angeles was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Archive 1 (May 2004-May 2006)

Contents 1 Good Article nomination has failed 2 University of California, Riverside Survey 3 Swami X 4 "Admissions" section NPOV check 5 Taser Incident 6 Admissions

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for University of California, Los Angeles has failed, for the following reason:

(History section ends in the 1930s though it does mention other history in the activisim section and the campus section and probably others as well. I think that much of the information of when this building or that building was added should be included in the History section and the campus section should be divided into it's major parts (probably into the parts located at the "western part of Los Angeles, north of the Westwood shopping district and just south of Sunset Boulevard," a structure that would allow more orderly detail on buildings and such. I have similar feelings for the activisim section as well. Surely the "Dirty Thirty" or something concerning them should be listed in the history section. The Article just doesn't flow well as it is and that should be addressed.

Also largely absent are criticisms of university policy or controverseys, which to me indicates bias in favor of the University.

"So basically, a controversey section (activisim doesn't really cover it) and thorough and ordered history and campus section (and a restructuring of the article in general to make it flow better are needed). ) TonyJoe 06:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, who nominated the UCLA article for a review? I did some of the early editing on the activism section and would be interested in helping to get the entire article up to speed. I stopped editing here because it seemed there were too many nameless editors who developed propiatary affections for their awful prose, especially in the Athletics section, and because an adequate UCLA article would be a huge undertaking. But anyway, I've picked up some information on Chuck Young while editing the UCR article, and can try integrating that and the Activism section with History this weekend if no one objects to my doing this.--Amerique 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of California, Riverside Survey

I'm posting this survey request Talk:University of California, Riverside#UCR Survey on all the UC talk pages in order to gather outside opinion on ongoing issues concerning the POV of this article. Please read the article and add your insights to the survey to help us identify any points of consensus in the UCR article. Thanks--Amerique 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey closed, thanks--Amerique 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is a great article on UCLA...i'm surprised it didn't make it as a "great article." I think it's a great article, if that means anything. Congratulations to all the editors. I'll take a look at that survey when I have a chance, Ameriques. I went to UCR before moving on to UCLA. BruinBoy 19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on beefing up this article some more?? I'm going to go take the survey now. I've been away for a few weeks. BruinBoy 01:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swami X

I am a bit surprised that an effort to incorporate some honest history of the real world of students at UCLA in the early 1970s was repeatedly deleted by a Wikipedian thought-police functionary and self-appointed exciser of reality. I have restored the topic as an independent article and invite additions and commentary. See Swami X

[edit] "Admissions" section NPOV check

Sounds racially biased. Please check and discuss. Thanks. Fiaworldrally 07:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the university admissions process is or was, will be, or still is racially biased. What's your concern? Thanks,--Amerique 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, my friends. I can't agree that this section has a strong Point of View one way or the other. It is merely reporting the facts, and the sources are cited. I propose removing the POV tag as soon as possible, unless some arguments in favor of keeping it can be shown. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello George. Let's leave it up for week to see if any counterarguments can be made.--Amerique 03:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taser Incident

I'm surprised that the article has not been edited to reference this. Can someone provide a reason with why it should not be? Deshi no Shi 04:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument would be that, a few years from now, it will be considered a very very small facet of UCLA's long history. -- SCZenz 04:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It used to be in the article. It was removed because, relative to UCLA's long history (and the many incidents and events that happen on campus yearly) it was not notable enough to be included. It is much more proper as the subject of a news story rather than an encyclopedic entry. If there was say, a trend or policy in place over time of violenting arresting students, that would be noteworthy here. Bruin03 04:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there apparently is such a trend or policy of police brutality against students at UCLA: [1]. Perhaps the subject merits it's own section? --Amerique ^dialectics 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Police responding to a riot does not make a trend. First, it's arguable that this incident, involving both the LAPD and the UCPD, was appropriate. After all, students were burning couches in the street and a large (and likely, intoxicated) crowd had gathered. It's not like the riot police showed up to a UCLA pep rally and started beating students. Let's remember the context. Second, consider your source and its bias. It's the Daily Bruin, a student-run publication. Gee, don't you think the writing is going to be slanted in favor of the students. Moreover, my point was that in looking back at history (years from now), if an appreciable trend of incidents (such as in the library) occurred, then it would be noteworthy. Adding it in the heat of the moment is hardly the business of an encyclopedia.

Maybe it should be up to the reader what is and is not noteworthy? (Not an argument so much as a thought requesting feedback) Deshi no Shi 18:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia core content policies. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Determining whether these incidents form a significant trend is the job of the L.A. Times, not Wikipedia! If we publish such a controversial assertion, that's original research. --Coolcaesar 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the incident has a separate article: UCLA Taser incident -- SCZenz 04:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admissions

UCLA is among the two most selective schools in the UC system. 76.176.83.107 edited on 10 December that UCLA is one of the three most selective schools by citing UCSD among the top three, which is not an inherently false statement, but it implies that UCLA is ranked third in admission rates behind UCSD and Cal, which is not true. It seems like a way of mentioning UCSD when it's not really relevant.

Need documentation Hechung 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

UCLA and Cal are very close in admission rates, which necessitates the wording "one of the two most selective schools in the UC system." They both admit in the mid-20th percentile (23.6% and 25.5% respectively), while the next most selective school (UCSD) admits 45.7%, a significant difference. See the data here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles/camp_profiles_ucla.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.67.233.206 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC).