Talk:University of Southern California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
A mortarboard 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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of Southern California article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

PLEASE READ THE TALK HEADER ABOVE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO USE A DISCUSSION PAGE IF YOU HAVE NEVER DONE SO, THANK YOU! (this all-caps, all-bold reminder brought to you by Bobak 17:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Archive
Archives
  1. 24 August 2004 − 20 June 2006

Contents

[edit] Marching Band vandalized

I just stumbled across the page and noticed that the marching band section appears to have been vandalized (unless the author has a very low opinion of the band for some reason). Just wanted to point that out. Jcoggesh 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you were right. I did the revert. If you ever run across something like that in any article, don't hesitate to check the edit history for a suspicious edit and make the revert if its blatant. Thanks for the heads up. --Bobak 16:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athletics section NPOV?

Personally I feel that most of the athletics page is borderline hagiography of the SC sports program, especially compared with other athletics sections. Just as a comparison, look at how the USC page and the UCLA page describe great coaches: the USC page uses a lot of superlative adjectives talking about Dedeaux and Carroll, while the UCLA page simply says "all titles were won by Al Scates" when talking about volleyball. I know this is a minefield to tread on, comparing USC and UCLA (let it be known that I am a Mizzou fan), but it gets my point across.--ChicosBailBonds 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really see too much to change. I made some minor tweaks here and there, but the rest is fact-based so I have removed the tag. If you take USC, UCLA and Stanford (and the rest of the Pac-10) you have the vast majority of NCAA championships. Oddly enough, USC would have more NCAA championships if the NCAA handed out one in football :-) The UCLA sections are a little disappointing, I guess they need more Wikipedians! --Bobak 00:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coridinates

I have noticed that Duke University and Harvard have the coridinates in the upper right of the page. I do not know how to do that. USC's (Tommy Trojan) Longitude is -118.28641 with a latitude is 34.01892.

[edit] Graduate Rankings

The source cited is USNWR. However, someone keeps substituting the WSJ ranking for the Marshall school instead, presumably because its ranking (10th) is much more flattering than the USNWR rating of 29th. Let's not pick and choose only the good sides we want to show about USC.

I agree it's not good to cherry-pick. Of course, why not have both as long as one isn't too sketchy? --Bobak 17:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like someone already came to that conclusion... no more "rabbit season, duck season" ranking wars :-) --Bobak 18:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the USNWR ranking for Marshall was removed again. I added it. Also, shouldn't it be 2007 rankings, not 2006?

[edit] Template

The USC template at the bottom of all the USC pages I think is working well. I copied it off of the Law School page and just now though realized that I have been pasting the template with "California" spelled wrong in the law school link. It really isn't that noticable but it does need to be changed.

Is there a way that either that can be changed without doing it one by one or else creating a template that is easier to use like the Pac 10 or the "Asso. of American Universities" have?

--Wd40gdw 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Spoilt Children

I just got dinged for vandalism (boo hoo) and threatened with banning (wtf?????) for adding a bit in about 'University of spoilt children' to the trivia section (yes, by a moderator who went to USC - I sense a gigantic conspiracy afoot, quite possibly involving mossad and the illuminati and flying wolves) - a slightly extreme reaction and I can't see why it shouldn't be there either - a lot of the article verges on the self-congradulatory as it is and for crying out loud trivia's trivia!

There are no such things as moderators on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to regurgitate childish information. Besides, if you want a comparison: USC has more students on financial aid than UCLA, so you're about 25 years late on that even being remotely accurate. For more reading, see WP:VANDAL, or maybe start with WP:WELCOME and work your way towards it. Thank you. --Bobak 00:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

oooh bite me ;)! I heartily retract my statment that wikipedia has moderators . You can throw whatever facts/figures at me, I really don't care and see it as irrelevant I, I am merely quoting a generally repated adage around the non-USC californian student and graduate community. Similairly in the James Blunt articles it's been noted that people now refer in cockney slang to a 'cunt' as a 'james' - i'm willing to bet the guy who posted that didn't get threatened with banning by emotionally-vested blunt fans (horny schoolgirls don't tend to surf wikipedia a lot I imagine) despite mr. blunt's complete lack of resemblance to a vagina. the spoilt children comment is an interesting comment on people's (possibly unjust) perception of USC. the other US uni pages (harvard, yales etc) are secure enough to allow criticism/self-deprecation into their wikipedia pages- i'm sure USC would be able to survive the turmoil. And surely an encyclopdia IS a place to regurgitate information? that's the whole point. and it's not childish, childish would be fabricating the nickname myself.

You and I both know that there are dozens of negative nicknames for every major university in the US (especially those with athletic rivalries). Should I try and add the ones I used to hear in High School or on athletic boards? Here are a few popular ones: Stanford = Stanfurd (Cal's nickname for them); California = Kal; UCI = University of Chinese Immigrants; UCLA = ACLU/University of Caucasians Lost among Asians? No, absolutely not: They're of no use in an encyclopedic article. No argument. Revert on site in any article. --Bobak 00:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. To the extent that their might be criticism of demographics, it should be done in an informed and statistical tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crimsonmaroon (talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Size of pictures

Why do the pictures no longer have the sizes on them. They are all now very small and to not fit properly??

--72.130.134.60 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Images should only be specified to particular sizes for a very good reason. Because different users use different-sized screens at different-sized resolutions, a size that looks good on your screen may not look good on someone else's. Logged-in users can adjust thumbnail sizes in their preferences. User:Angr 13:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Angr: remember, some of us have very different screen settings so it's hard to pick something that will work for everyone in the Wikipedia's edit capacity. --Bobak 00:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undergraduate rankings

In the undergraduate rankings section, it states that the School of International Relations is ranked "3rd." The source it sites is the SIR's website[1]. The website states, however, that the school is merely the world's third oldest school of international relations, behind University of Wales, Aberystwyth and Georgetown University, respectively. I believe the way in which the ranking is presented is not NPOV, and suggestes that the school was "ranked" in some sort of comprehensive survery, akin to US News. Unfortunately, no such ranking exists for schools of international relations. I will leave this open to comment/suggestions for a few days, but, in lew of any newly presented evidence, I do plan to erase this reference to the school of international relations from the USC page in a few days. Trojan traveler 04:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a safe bet. I don't know where that number is coming from, either. Incidently, Foreign Policy magazine did do a ranking of graduate IR programs, USC was not in the top-20 (coincidently, that particular issue is used as the cover scan for the article about said magazine). --Bobak 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I've never been able to find undergraduate rankings for IR programs in the US. But actually if you look at the Foreign Policy article [2], USC's IR program is 19th for Master's programs. It goes unranked in PhD programs. Woogums 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed, sir! (on SIR? --LOL)... I left my copy of that article at home and I had in the back of my head the 'SC did get one ranking, but I figured I would read it tonight. Good job on getting the info quickly. --Bobak 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Slightly different area of the same topic: the 2007 US News rankings are in (same link works in the article), and USC has moved up from 30th to 27th. --Bobak 00:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images listed for deletion

All of the images in this article that were uploaded by User:Wd40gdw and User:Troyboysc are listed for deletion due to doubts about their copyright status (see here and here). Considering that most of them are just pictures of the campus, it should be easy for someone to go on campus and shoot a bunch of photos. Or try this search on Flickr. howcheng {chat} 23:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but there should really be nicer pictures of the campus put on the front page. Most of the current pictures are close-ups of the less nice buildings, and overall the pictures probably give the impression that USC is an extremely ugly school. There are so many nice pictures of campus on the internet, I hope someone finds the time to actually put them on the wiki page. 76.171.94.152 09:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, please don't! Pictures found on the internet are copyright, and so not usually suitable. This is why the last lot were deleted, and it just wastes everyones time cleaning up. Surely, however, there is someone with a camera who could take a photo and release it under a suitable license? Notinasnaid 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On recent edits, now with cites:

Just to summarize my semi-reverts:

  • 1st edit: The term "most selective" is a term used by US News (also cited in the article), but I'm looking at the 2006 ed. hard copy and it's listed on page 148: "most selevtive" (this info is also available online for 2007[3], citation now added). There is no challenge to USC's diversity claim either, please see page 47 of the US News' index of Racial Diversity, National Universities. I did remove the excessive "only". Again, all legitimate reverts but one word.
  • 2nd edit: Again, this can be all proven with this citation, to the University of Florida's TheCenter (no space), which produces the reliable numbers for university facts like these. See The Top American Research Universities (2005), page 34 (most recent).
  • 3rd edit: Citations added where needed, corrected where there was confusion with the graduate programs (several kept removed). However, I am retaining correct citations by schools that have ranked themselves (otherwise there would be an issue of USC's committing fraud). I also added entrepreneurship since I was looking. I corrected the mistake in engineering, it was also a reference on that USC page to the graduate program, but I found the US News cite. The USC film school didn't really need to introduce itself, but its own page will have to do.

--Bobak 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Trojan unwrap, paint, rewrap

The factoid about UCLA fans unwrapping the duct tape around Tommy Trojan, painting the statue blue, and re-wrapping the duct tape comes as news to me—and I am rather incredulous. This job would take more hours than the statue has ever been left unguarded, and unless the vandalism took place prior to the 1990s, it would have been noticed (and perhaps witnessed) by numerous people on TommyCam well before the final unwrapping of the statue. I'm placing a citation needed tag on this tidbit, and if no reference is cited within a few months, I'll remove the information. (Perhaps it's vandalism in the form of wishful thinking?) Robert K S 23:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I change my mind—I'm deleting it immediately. That particular sentence was full of typographical errors, suggestive of vandalism, and the factoid about the statue being wrapped up in duct tape prior to UCLA games comes at the end of the article, making it, moreover, redundant. Robert K S 23:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It was impossible. After reviewing the anon IP's other edits, notable this vandal/self-removal, I put a mild warning on his page for adding what appears to be deliberate misinformation (and you are correct, it is (1) not true and (2) impossible for the reason you said, as well as the fact that it's under survellance by USC students during that time). Good work. --Bobak 01:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the big deal about the nickname, "Southern Cal?"

Enough already! I am really fed up with the SC Football media guide’s posting:

“It’s Not “Southern Cal” -Note to the media: In editorial references to athletic teams of the University of Southern California, the following are preferred: USC, Southern California, So. California, Troy and Trojans for the men’s or women’s teams and Women of Troy fo the women’s teams. PLEASE do not use Southern Cal (it’s like calling San Francisco “Frisco” or North Carolina “North Car.”). The usage of “Southern Cal” on licensed apparel and merchandise is limited in scope and necessary to project federal trademark rights.

I really believe that the main reason why we are called “USC” today is that there is a “UCLA” right across town. Have you ever looked at old newspaper articles on SC Football....most of them have a headline of “Southern Cal” on them.

Hey...we are the University of Southern California...”Southern Cal” has been a great nickname for us, and it is in jeopardy of being wiped away from our heritage just because someone in the Sports Information department has some bug up their you know what about it!

Listen to ESPN on any given day, and we are now known as “Youeseee!” I wouldn’t be surprised if they put that as an acceptable reference to the university!

I have a sweatshirt with “Southern Cal” on it. Do you remember when we had the “Southern Cal Spell-out?” Now we only hear chants of “U-S-C! U-S-C!” What about the card stunts when we played the Cal Bears...we changed the “CAL” to “Southern Cal!” Do you remember that? How about those old football programs? We were known as “Southern California,” or “Southern Cal.”


Is anyone offended when you hear “Southern Cal?” I can’t find one person who is! Let’s get this thing permanently removed from the Football Media Guide.

Dogoftroy 17:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For clarification, I've always heard it called the "SoCal Spellout", and it spells it out in its entirety ("S-O-U-T-H-E-R-N! C-A-L-I-F-O-R-N-I-A! Southern... Califorrrrrrrrnia!!!!"). But moving on to the issues regarding the University's branding department (and this is a university-wide policy, not just the AD): an encyclopedia isn't the right place to try and argue the policy, its for its current state on an issue like this. Good or bad, the people I know who've graduated since the mid-90s don't really think of it as Southern Cal. I've noticed the people who use it are generally older. --Bobak 18:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that even saying the usage Southern Cal is "incorrect" (actually, the adverbial form is used at the beginning of the article) violates NPOV. I see it as an ideal short form of the school's name, since "USC" is ambiguous (it's also the abbreviation for the University of South Carolina) and "Southern California" is a mouthful (depending on the context, it could also be ambiguous). "So. California" might be fine in print, but how are you supposed to say it?
IMHO, the preference for not using "Southern Cal" should be confined to a paragraph deep in the text, although I don't think anything of value would be lost if the whole matter were simply deleted from Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, who cares whether somebody at USC finds "Southern Cal" unacceptable? It has nothing to do with either the academic or athletic achievements of the university.4.243.152.236 07:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what the big deal is, either. They always have been and always will be Southern Cal. "USC" is too easily confused with the University of South Carolina. Also, I don't notice the University of California getting too worked up about being called "Cal". Dubc0724 14:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You actually touched on one aspect of the problem (they see): "Cal" has been California-Berkeley's name for much longer; USC sees a mess with being viewed as the Southern campus of "Cal" (UCLA was actually called "University of California, Southern Branch" at early on). As someone who lives in the midwest, you'd be surprised how many people think USC is a public school in San Diego or some variation of the two. Anyways, Wikipedia isn't the place to start trying to get a school to change its name policy. --and it's certainly not POV to follow what the school says is not it's appropriate name. --Bobak 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
(it is not "POV" if the university's official policy states that "Southern Cal" is incorrect... Sure it is. It is the university's own POV that Southern Cal is somehow "incorrect" because they happen not to like it. The university apparently has no problem using the abbreviation USC, which could also be considered "incorrect". The University of South Carolina was established 79 years before Southern Cal. For the school's preference to be definitively stated as "correct" or "incorrect" is pushing their POV. Dubc0724 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that logic is subjective and flawed: A person or organization decides what they are called. Unless you can provide a radical new WP otherwise, I will not budge. If you feel WP:ARB is necessary, please take further steps and I will oblige. Furthermore, the citation of the University of South Carolina is also inadequate because it was not called "USC" until 1906: 26 years after this USC took the acronym --but that gets into trademark protection. Universities have commonly had some overlap, and they protect their trademarks accordingly. This is about what a school prefers to be called, and as much as South Carolina doesn't want to be known as "the school those racists from Borat went to"; under your logic, they can be called that and their desire not to be would be POV. Not likely. --Bobak 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Comparing a pejorative nickname to an established one that is widely used is misleading and counterproductive. Apparently the University has decided to try and distance itself from a name that has the word "Cal" in it. Who knows why? Maybe they don't want to be confused with a lowly public school?
Anyway, my contention is that including a school's opinion on whether or not an informal, non-pejorative name is "incorrect" -- even when it is used widely by students, fans, supporters, and the media -- seems to be placing the school administration's POV above reality. Perhaps the school thinks its football team is the best in the world. Do we accept their opinion as fact here?
OK - that's my story & I'm sticking to it. It's not so important to me that I'm willing to go to arbitration over it, so unless someone else wants to address this silliness, I'll let it go for now. Thanks, Dubc0724 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dubc0724. Whether a nickname is "incorrect" is entirely opinion.

That logic is flawed: It's not POV if its explicitly stated. By that note I could call a university "GFU" or "Second rate State" and it wouldn't be incorrect

Again, the comparison to a pejorative doesn't really help, as there isn't anything inherently offensive about 'Southern Cal.' But indeed, if people refer to it as something else, and it were somewhat common, it might be included as a nickname of the university. It could well be noted that the university does not appreciate being called that, or that it's not an official name for the university, and perhaps that is true of 'Southern Cal,' but that doesn't make it "incorrect" in some way. There isn't an official body that can say what people can and cannot use as nicknames.

The media guide compares this to calling San Francisco "Frisco," which again points to this being a preference. The city, and most residents, prefer people not to use that name, but that does not make it incorrect. Newspapers don't issue retractions for using such names, and non-opinion articles and books do not say the usage is incorrect.

It could be considered incorrect if say, the nickname was Southern Arizona, because it is a fact that they are not in Arizona. But Southern Cal, where Cal is a recognized abbreviation for California, seems to be disapproved of due to opinion. Perhaps the wording should be changed to "and unofficially and begrudgingly Southern Cal." --skew-t 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject California

Should the WikiProject California Banner be in the article, or on the talk page? Trojan traveler 00:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page. I've removed it from the article, I'll put it here --Bobak 16:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I just updated the banner. --evrik 14:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent revert

I reverted a change which moved Marshall School of Business Entrepreneur Program from 6th to 3rd. Unfortunately the article is not sourced, but some informal searching showed a number of results including [4] which supported this. The edit summary was, however, completely wrong because I was reverting a swathe of inappropriate links at the same time, sorry. Notinasnaid 10:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo list

As some have pointed out, this article probably could use some better (freely usable) photos of campus and its landmarks (we already have a decent one of Bovard, but there could be a better photo). Since this is SoCal, sunny day photos are ideal. I took some of Whitney, the Tirebiter statue, Galen Center and the Coliseum last time I was on campus for homecoming, but I forgot to take more photos (and I live in Minneapolis, so this isn't something I can just roll out of bed and do...). Thus I think it would be helpful to generate a list of "wanted" photos and see if anyone can supply them. I will start a list below and if people want to add suggestions, please do. --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested photo list for USC article

Please add and/or make comments on each (do not delete what you disagree with, rather let us know you disagree so we can all see); to make a new comment: indent (":"), bullet ("*") and sign ("--~~~~"). You can also feel free to show photos you may have of these locations. I realize I'm not using the formal names, just the common ones:

PHOTO LIST:

  • Doheny library
  • Student Union
  • Tommy Trojan
  • We have a good "wrapped" photo, now lets get one unwrapped.--Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Second. I have a few I could upload, but I'm certain others have better ones. Robert K S 18:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Mudd Hall of Philosophy
  • Accounting and/or Finance
  • School of Cinematic Arts
  • not pretty buildings, but people would like to see the buildings with the "George Lucas" and/or "Spielberg" on them) --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a good and recent Lucas one I can upload. Robert K S 18:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Architecture Building
  • See above comment on Cinematic Arts --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • PE Building
  • Annenberg Center for Communication
  • This is the pretty house on Adams, not the school on campus. --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • VKC
  • Law School
  • Probably just for its own article only --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Health Campus
  • Just about any good photo will do. --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Catalina Campus
  • In case someone, somehow is going to be over there... --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • USC Main Entrance (near Popovich)

I can get photos of all of these things on the University Park campus when I get back after break. =) – Lantoka (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do so and you shall be known as the rocking one! --Bobak 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Being Impartial

I think the article needs to avoid using language that risks sounding biased and unfactual. Not to bring up the rivalry with UCLA again, but just concentrating on their respective wiki articles, one gets the sense that the UCLA article is more factual and impartial than USC's, which contains subjective language such as "USC is well known for..." or "is among the best..." or "is known for...especially in...". Such subjectivity suggests a lack of scholastic or intellectual integrity which reflects negatively on an article about, what is above all things, an academic institution. When editing this article, I suggest doing it from the standpoint of an academic paper or thesis. For example, if one want's to make note of USC's fame, don't just state it oneself outrightly, but rather, cite a respectable source which addresses such a fame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.129.5.232 (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC).--72.129.5.232 10:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for bring it up here instead of running around and deleting sections. Considering I've contributed substantially to both articles (albeit more on this one), I would need to see example of what you claim. I suggest using the {{fact}} tag on those sentences that trouble you, that way other editors can look that them and try to source them or tone down language. We were able to source the academic rankings after a previous editor from Stanford was going through and deleting sections (when a fact tag would've been enough to alert those of use keeping an eye on the article) on several different university articles including this one. However, of course, don't expect full agreement ;-) --Bobak 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rankings

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there are US News undergraduate rankings for anything but University, Business, and Engineering. Those other rankings (e.g. cinematic arts, accounting, etc) should probably be deleted if there are no alternate sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.129.5.232 (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

I've made corrections. Please buy or peruse a print copy before making such assumptions. I am being a little terse because, while your initial, sourced, additions to the political atmosphere were based in sourced fact, the subsequent additions, starting here, became original research and opinion which are unacceptable in any Wikipedia article. To further make the point, this section "In stark contrast, USC's then acting student body president H. Eames Bishop held ties to relatively conservative Los Angeles Mayor Samuel Yorty, a staunch supporter of pro-Vietnam War President Lyndon Johnson. [18]" was very wrong: according to the very source you cited (Bishop's obit) he was a graduate of USC in 1936 --not the acting student body president in any relevant time period to Johnson. --Bobak 19:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. You did a better job with the edit than my original and I applaud your research. But I feel that a section on student politics should be left in place, as politics are an important aspect of collegiate life. --72.129.5.232 11:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good add. I was trying to figure out how to work that in but I couldn't make it flow properly. --Bobak 16:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A farce...

This article is a joke when it comes to NPOV. It reads like an advertisement for USC. Go find me a real encyclopedia that refers to a school's "long and storied" history.

The fact that the person who essentially wrote and maintains the article--Bobak--is a Trojan alumnus should say it all.----floydp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.167.208.181 (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

That criticism is baseless. If you can identify and cite incorrect statements and issues in the article, do so. Since you have anonymously singled me out, here's another challenge: if you can single out instances were I have added uncited claims, please do so. Otherwise your opinion is baseless POV based on what you, an anon account, think. Frankly, you've demonstrated your lack of understanding of how pages are written by claiming that I "wrote" the article. My additions barely add up to 5%. --Bobak 17:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you clear on what NPOV means? It does not refer to errors of fact. It refers to style of presentation. There's nothing in the article that is incorrect, as far as I can tell. But the tone of the article, and the manner in which it is presented, is hardly dispassionate. As to the remark that you "wrote" the article, I can't help but notice that you characterize yourself as having "contributed substantially" to the USC page. Well, that would seem to imply that you wrote something far more than 5%. At the very least, you certainly maintain it--virtually every "response" here is from you. And do you think there's just maybe a possibility that someone who went to USC, someone whose email address trumpets their USC fandom, might just be something less than objective? I mean, if you don't believe me, believe all the other people who have commented. Elcielo917, for example. ----johnhenrybonham111
I'm sorry if you have problems with cited facts, but if you want trite and soulless presentation please go forth and write up other articles to those expectations. As of right now, your comments that "yeah, their right but they just sound too positive" doesn't really convince me. --Bobak 02:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I guess they did not teach you the difference between 'their' and 'they're' at USC. Second, by your logic, I assume I am free to include this sentence in the USC page: "USC is located in one of the most crime-ridden parts of Los Angeles. As such, many people avoid the campus at night for fear of being victimized by gangs." Nothing there is factually inaccurate, after all. Pejorative and judgmental yes, incorrect no. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.167.208.181 (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
I see. So now you have changed your story, Bobak. You don't pretend any more that this article has a NPOV. Instead, you think you're above the use of NPOV because NPOV is "soulless." At least we know now where you stand. And since you will revert any change made to this article, I suppose the rest of us will stand aside and you can continue to use Wikipedia as your personal propaganda machine. ---johnhenrybonham111 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.97.253.2 (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
I don't want to get into this argument, but I was just glancing at this article and the intro paragraph, at least, reads like it is slanted to favor USC, in my opinion - especially the bit about how many championships they've won. I say this especially in comparison to other university pages I've seen. --Elcielo917 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selectivity NPOV

In the beginning of the second paragraph of this article, the author claims that "USC is one of the most selective universities in the United States, admitting 25% or 8,634 of the almost 34,000 who applied for freshman admission in 2006." My objection has to do with the contention that a 25% admissions rate places USC among the most selective universities in the country. Harvard (9.3%), Yale (8.6%), pretty much the rest of the ivy league, MIT (13.3%), Stanford (10.8%), Georgetown (21%), and even the public UC Berkeley (23.5%), just to name a few, are more selective than USC if percentage of freshman applicants admitted is the criterion we're using. UCLA has an acceptance rate of 25.5% (gasp!), which is only slightly higher than USC's (assuming the author properly rounded the tenths place down only if it was below one half, of course). So USC is not anywhere near the most selective university -- probably not even in the top thirty. Please consider using less gushing language.

Theytsejam 02:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)theytsejam

Actually, the term "most selective" is a term used by the US News (and other university ranking guides) to categorize admissions. It uses several variations: "more selective", "selective", "less selective". So to assume that it's "gushing language" actually reveals that you want an additional level beyond those, that can be done: simply write the percentage in the Harvard, Yale, etc. articles (or "top 10" or other such specific ranking). --Bobak 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUniversity_of_Southern_California_929e.html"