Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 7

Ongoing problems?

Although I agree that this article is not written from neutral point of view, whoever puts up the dispute tag needs to propose specific changes to make the article neutral. For now I'm putting up a {{POV-check}} tag for others to check the neutrality of this article. Aucaman^Talk 11:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aucaman. In order to maintain the NPOV tag, there needs to be an explanation of why it belongs there. This has to be something more substantial than "my gut feeling is that the article is biased." Otherwise, I suggest that we remove the tag, because I think the article has made significant improvements. UCRGrad 20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Also with regard to the addition: "undergraduate education at UCR has produced an eventual Nobel prize winner," I'd like to point out that literally, this statement is not entirely correct. It is purely speculative to state that the undergrad education produced a Nobel prize winner. That is to say, how can we know what contribution this man's undergrad education had towards his eventual Nobel prize-winning research? Probably very little, since nobel-prize-level research is unlikely to be done at the college level. In all likelihood, this type of work was done while he was an MIT professor or perhaps while he was a Ph.D. student at Harvard. I have edited the statement to make it more accurate. UCRGrad 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. generally though, colleges do take credit for providing the formative experiences leading to later acomplishments. that a direct relationship is involved is questionable, however. thx---Amerique 15:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I motion to remove the tag ASAP. Insert-Belltower 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nay. I'll try to make up something like a full list of disputed items this weekend. --ElKevbo 00:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you and others have had more than enough time to state what is so "biased" about this article...weeks, in fact. All I've been reading over the past month or so have been gripes about a sentence here or there -- NOBODY has really explained why they believe the article is biased. Therefore, I am removing the tag JUSTIFIABLY, until somebody explains why this article truly violates NPOV. Furthermore, if you are up to the challenge, I would expect you to differentiate between true bias and the conveyance of negative facts (only the first of which is unacceptable). Thanks. UCRGrad 03:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was said that a list would be provided. If you could show a little more patience, I am sure that a much better debate can be held on both sides. In any case, the article is still hotly disputed, and questions on the status of the NPOV have been raised. Removing the tag does a disservice to all who read the article. --jahamal 03:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I said that several weeks have passed and NOBODY has really explained why they believe the article is biased. With regard to "hotly disputed," all I've seen for the past few weeks has been concerns over a few sentences here and there. Debates have arisen only over a few sentences, or in one case, the inclusion of a harmless photo. In all fairness, the NPOV tag should be affixed ONLY IF AND WHEN someone actually explains WHY it should be there. UCRGrad 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I will remove the NPOV tag until someone explains why this article requires it. Insert-Belltower 20:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Placing an NPOV tag without actually explaining WHY the article does not meet neutral point of view standards is not acceptable. Although many people have "claimed" that the explanation is all of the discussion, it is not. I've skimmed over it again. Basically, the TALK page is riddled with:

a) accusations of bias. i.e. statements that a person believes the article is BIASED. it ends with this. There is no explanation as to why. Unfortunately, the mere opinion that an article is biased, is not sufficient grounds to place that NPOV tag up.

b) LONG debates over a few sentences here and there. A few sentences do not constitute the level of bias that warrants the NPOV tag, even if I were to stipulate that these sentences introduced biased (which I don't).

Thus, without an explanation of why this article is biased (again, there has not been one yet), the NPOV tag does not belong. UCRGrad 23:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Some Proposals Largely Unrelated to Neutrality, except 1

I do not intend to get intensively involved in the neutral:non-neutral debate, however, there are several ways in which this article could be improved. These are only suggestions immediately off the top of my head and in no order of importance:

1. Description of the immediate UCR campus environment, architecture. A mention of the UCR Botanical Garden and its function as a campus resource is curiously absent.

I think this would be a great addition to the article. (as long as the information is appropriatley referenced and objective) UCRGrad 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

2. The UCR photography museum in downtown Riverside should also be discussed as a unique asset.

California Museum of Photography definitely deserves mention. (as long as the information is appropriatley referenced and objective) UCRGrad 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Discussion of the history of "The Barn" on the UCR campus, which I understand was converted into a cafeteria several years ago. It was once a landmark in the burgeoning IE/SoCal ska/punk scene. I myself saw some great shows there... there should be some material out there if anyone still familiar with this scene or with any archival resources at UCR can research this.

The Barn is now defunct, but I guess it deserves a brief mention. (as long as the information is appropriately referenced and objective)UCRGrad 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

4. Discussion of UCR's student run radio station, KUCR. It was only source of non-commercial, ecelectic or underground music while I lived in the IE.

I agree that we should mention KUCR. (as long as the information is appropriately referenced and objective)UCRGrad 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

5. Discussion of the UCR Palm Desert Campus.

Definitely should be included.(as long as the information is appropriately referenced and objective) UCRGrad 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

6. Discussion of that letter on the riverside mountains, I think it's a "c," don't UCR students paint that annually? that could be explained and discussed as a campus tradition.

I think every UC has "C" somewhere. UCRGrad 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

7. The heading "Future professional schools" should be changed to "Proposed professional schools."

Fine with me. UCRGrad 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

8. Direct comparisons of UCR to other UC schools only have the point of establishing Riverside as the worst UC and can become flashpoints for bias accusations. Each school is independent and all come in second in various degrees when compared to Berkeley anyway. My suggestion is that various analytical statements such as

"Financially, UCR has received sufficient funding to become a comprehensive university, but has lagged behind other UC schools with respect to growth in this area."

"UCR has a lower peer assessment score, selectivity rank, and overall ranking than any other campus in the University of California."

be removed or restated so that the stats themselves can stand for the reader's interpertation.--Amerique 18:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying such statements, which are usually referenced, are in themselves inaccurate, but that, in the case of the other UCs, the playing field or the field of comparison is not at all fair to UCR, as every other UC started in an area with either a larger population, more idyllic location, more money, or some combination of all three. UCR was the smallest and the least funded UC campus for much of its history, any statistical comparison of UCR to other UCs should consider the stats in systemic context for the comparison to appear less biased.--Amerique 16:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Amerique, you make an excellent point that perhaps UCR was handicapped in that it it was not originally started in an "area with either larger population or idyllic location, more money, or some combination." I don't dispute that this is possible. However, the purpose of the wikipedia article isn't really to make "excuses" as to why UCR didn't seem to flourish (at least in terms of financial resources) like the other schools. If you have a reference, I'd definitely throw this information in...but our first obligation is to provide relevant facts about UCR, especially in areas such as academics, reputation, student statistics, and other relevant data that is uniformly included in college publications. That is to say, regardless of whether UCR was handicapped by its location, climate, or whatever, if it indeed does have the lowest peer assessment score, selectivity rank, and overall ranking in the UC system according to US News Report, I don't see any way that we can justifiably remove this information - the facts need to be stated...and to be honest, there really isn't any better way to state these facts without introducing POSITIVE bias or inaccuracy (unless you can think of a way). In fact, these are some of the more important indicators of school caliber...if anything, this information should be given MORE focus than it has now.

Regardless, I think it's great that you've made some suggestions to improve the article, and it'd be awesome if you added in some of the things you mentioned (referenced, of course). I wish some of the other detractors of this article would make similar positive suggestions rather than complain about "this and that," but not have any input for improvement. UCRGrad 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding comparative statistical arguments between UC campuses, the specific possible causes i listed for UCR's under-performance generally were not intended as "excuses" but as contextual elements against which the stats could be considered. These are as of now suppositions on my part... but any lack of fiscal or other support from either the UC or the local community are probably relevant factors to be consided in evaluating UCR's overall performance levels over time.

I'll dig around over the next week for some information relevant to context. Thank you--Amerique 22:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Nicely put, I also have problems with three of the pictures featured in the article. 1) The shot of the UV towers. -The UV Tower is not affiliated with UCR and is and off campus apartment complex. I think a picture of the dorms, be it lothian, pentland,of A&I would be better. 2)The shot of the student playing DDR is not very represenitive UCR student life. I think a shot of the commons around lunch time would be better, since that is how most students use commons. Most do not play in the small and limited arcade. 3) The picture of the sorority girl (Yes I know this is a heated topic, but I call for a compromise and get a better shot of greek life) My problem with this shot is that it is just A sororitty girl. Greek life is about communities of people and friends, a shot of the coucches and letters set up beneath the bell tower almost every day would be much better representation of greek life. I have not found any pictures to replace these with, and even if I did I would not know how to go about getting them up, but I can just take my digital camera on campus and get a few shots I could figure it out. What say we to this? --jahamal 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jahamal, I request, if you are near the campus and have a digital camera, to take some shots that could be used in illustrating the proposed new section on "campus environment, architecture," and also write the text for it, as i am not near UCR and don't remember the campus layout at all. Regarding substituting certain pictures for others, I would suggest first posting any new pics you want to put up on the talk page first so the community can attempt to impartially evaluate them... for the purpose of evaluating images on the talk page, i think it is just a matter of copy and pasting jpegs, someone else would have to help you with setting any approved images on the article page. best,--Amerique 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see what the big whoop-de-doo is about the pictures. If people have pictures to add, then by all means. UCRGrad 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

POV Discussion

It is my continued assertion that many facts and allegations have been handpicked to cast a negative light on UCR. It has been done deftly and thus is difficult to prove in some ways. Nevertheless, below are my specific questions and concerns:

I'd like to thank ElKevbo for actually EXPAINING why he felt this article was not neutral in POV, which is something that nobody else really did. UCRGrad 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

History

1. The statement "Financially, UCR has received sufficient funding to become a comprehensive university, but has lagged behind other UC schools with respect to growth in this area" presents a few problems.
   1. What is "sufficient funding" and what source can be cited for either the "sufficient" benchmark or the actual amount of funding?

It's a fact that goes without saying. If you agree that UCR has become a "comprehensive university," then you must also agree that it has received sufficient funding to do so. If the university had insufficient funding, it would not be a comprehensive university! I'm not sure what the concern is here, but if you want to change the wording, then what do yo usuggest? Nevertheless, I fail to see how this affects NPOV. UCRGrad 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You're begging the question. Answer the questions, please. --ElKevbo 21:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "begging the question" - you are using the term incorrectly. Secondly, before I answer your question, perhaps you could explain the RELEVANCE of it. Why are you so concerned about usage of the term "sufficient funding?" Please explain how this even relates to NPOV (2nd request). UCRGrad 02:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm using the term completely correctly. Its relevance has already been explained. Answer the question. --ElKevbo 16:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Begging the question" is a colloquial term that refers to the "petitio principii," one of the deductive fallacies. I have not set up a syllogism, nor have I relied on any circular reasoning -- therefore, "begging the question" does not apply. If you are not familiar with a term, please don't use it (just as if you are not familiar with a particular aspect of this article, i.e. medical education, you should not attack it.) "National university" has already been defined by one of the references in the article. Here's an excerpt from US News and World Report: What are National Universities? There are 248 national universities-162 public, 86 private-based on the 2000 categories established by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. National universities offer a full range of undergraduate majors as well as master's and doctoral degrees. In many cases, they place strong emphasis on research and receive federal money to support their research endeavors." Again, if you'd like, we can change "comprehensive university" to "national university." ...and for the third time, you need to explain how this term adds bias to the article. UCRGrad 06:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Answer the original question. --ElKevbo 06:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. What is "comprehensive university?" I know the definition currently in use by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching but I want to make sure we're all using the same definition. I suspect it is not being used in a very technical, well-defined sense which is (always) a problem.

An encylopedia article is not obliged to use technical well-defined terms to the level that you desire. "Comprehesive university" can be interpreted to mean a college that offers multiple degree levels (including Ph.D.) and has multiple disciplines (not just liberal arts, for example). It has a similar meaning to what US News calls a "national university." I don't see how there is affects NPOV at all, though. UCRGrad 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"An encylopedia article is not obliged to use technical well-defined terms to the level that you desire." Bullshit. You do have to know that which you're talking about in an encyclopedia article. --ElKevbo 21:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I will not respond to anything that contains profanity. If you cannot be civil here, then perhaps you should not be contributing to this article. UCRGrad 02:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "national" or "comprehensive." Insert-Belltower 05:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Great! Then tell me what they mean. --ElKevbo 16:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone who claims to be kn

1. 1. Is "becom[ing] a comprehensive university" a goal of the UCR, UC, or State of California administration? If so, I don't see it stated (if I missed it, please let me know!). If not, then why is this even included?

UCR is classififed as a "national university" by US News and by every other major publication, meaning that it is a 4-year school that offers degrees in multiple disciplines and offers doctorates. There is no question about this. UCRGrad 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I don't understand how this is related at all to my question. Can you please explain further? --ElKevbo 21:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't even understand the relevance of your asking if "becoming a comprehensive university" is a goal of UCR. If you'd like, we can change "comprehensive university" to "national university." Please explain how this affects the article's NPOV (2nd request). UCRGrad 02:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant because the accusation is made (without support, I might add) that "UCR has received sufficient funding to become a comprehensive university, but has lagged behind other UC schools with respect to growth in this area." I said this several days ago. --ElKevbo 16:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I would like more context provided for the US News & World Report ranking of UCR as lowest of the UCs in terms of financial support. Without such context, this is a meaningless statement.

The statistic is appropriately linked. Please carefully read references before questioning them. US News provides numerical ranking for "financial resources"...UCR ranked LAST in financial resources. It's a simple and unbiased fact. If you like, we can write a paragraph on how UCR ranks last in funding, but I think others in your camp would object. UCRGrad 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is noteable. Someone has to be last, right?

And please stop assuming I haven't read the references or the previous discussions. Barring mistakes or oversights, I have read them. --ElKevbo 21:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that US News and World Report ranks schools based on "financial resources" makes it mentionable in a university article. The fact that it is a unique characteristic in an important area is another (independent) reason. (Unless you want to article that a school's financial resources are NOT that important.) UCRGrad 02:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The "financial resources" fact is unique to UCR and should be mentioned. Insert-Belltower 05:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Uniqueness is not the measuring stick of whether something should be included in an article. This particular fact simply isn't notable. --ElKevbo 16:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave two independent reasons, and I would expect a rational person to address both of them. To reiterate, "The fact that US News and World Report ranks schools based on 'financial resources' makes it mentionable in a university article." I agree that uniqueness-alone doesn't necessarily mandate the inclusion of a fact. However, if this uniqueness is in an important area, such as FINANCIAL RESOURCES, it without a doubt deserves mention. UCRGrad 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Academics

1. Nobel prize
   1. No supporting evidence is given of the statement that "Unlike most other UCs, UCR does not have any Nobel laureates on its faculty." I primarily request citations supporting the Nobel laureates on other campuses as the statement is unsupported and the word "most" raises some red flags as it is unspecified.
   2. Although a slightly interesting fact, I don't really understand why this is even included. This has already been discussed in significant detail but the gist of my argument is that it's a meaningless non-fact. There are many, many things the UCR campus does not have and it is pointless to list such non-facts in this or any other article.

You are bringing up the same arguments that I have already addressed many times. If you have a specific problem, quote my response from before and respond to it, please. I agree that we should not list irrelevant non-facts (i.e. "UCR does not have XYZ"), however, for important and relevant university/academic-related entities like Nobel-Prize-winning faculty, it is important to mention.UCRGrad 21:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We keep having the same conversation over and over again - we're deadlocked. Just because you have "addressed" my arguments doesn't mean you're right or the conversation is over as I continue to disagree with your arguments. That's why I suggested mediation. --ElKevbo 21:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that UCRGrad did not reply at all to your objection #1 above, which hasn't already been addressed many times (or at all, I believe). –Tifego^(t) _{17:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)}

I believe this is an authoritative source for the issue at hand: http://nobelprize.org/search/universities.html . SoCalAlum 23:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the trouble (even though Tifego and ElKevbo could have EASILY looked it up on google). UCRGrad 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First, it's not our responsibility to provide citations. If you want to to add information to or preserve information in an article, the onus is on you to to provide the citation. Further, the link provided says nothing about where the Nobel laureates are currently working; it only lists where they were working when they received the prize. Therefore you are still lacking evidence both of the factual accuracy of your claim and its relevance to this article. --ElKevbo 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

How about these?

1. UCLA: http://www.ucla.edu/about/nobelwinners/index.html
2. UCI: http://www.physsci.uci.edu/news/nobel.shtml, http://today.uci.edu/Features/profile_detail.asp?key=169
3. UCB: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/features/2000/nobel/uc_nobels.html
4. UCSD: http://www.ucsd.edu/aboutucsd.html
5. UCSB: http://www.ucsb.edu/nobel/index.shtml

SoCalAlum 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. But I've yet to be convinced of how this is particularly relevant to the UCR article... --ElKevbo 21:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable for you to demand that certain facts be referenced, and SoCalAlum has graciously done so. However, if you believe that a certain fact is not relevant to the article, it is up to YOU to convince others that it does not belong -- not the other way around. Now, you had started to do this above under the section "inappropriate deletions," and I responded to each and every one of your arguments directly. Currently, you don't have any remaining unaddressed arguments as to why we should not mention the lack of Nobel-prize winning faculty, especially since you make no objection to mention of a UCR ALUM who earned a Nobel later in his career. UCRGrad 06:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not "up to [me] to convince others that it does not belong." WP:V clearly states that "the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." You have yet to establish how this is relevant to this article beyond hand-waving claims of "it's important!" and my claims remain unaddressed. --ElKevbo 07:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it relevant that UC Riverside has "no Nobel Laureates" on its faculty? Again, how many universities out there do not have any Nobel Laureates on its faculty? I would estimate well over 80% of the universities. Why should we mention that Riverside has no nobel Laureates? If we do so for Riverside, we ought to mention it for EVERY #$%@ing university that has no Nobel Laureates on its faculty!!! Teknosoul02 15:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents...what you are saying about universities in general may or may not be true, I don't know, but here we have a university in the prestigious University of California system, one of two public university systems in the state of California. A workable analogy for this might be comparing cars. Let's say you have a top-of-the-line decked out SUV. It might not be fair to compare this car to, say, a Toyota Echo because they have different purposes. However, comparing the SUVs to others in its class would be more appropriate. Of course this isn't to imply that a school is "better" just because it has Nobel Laureates on its faculty...just as an Echo can get you through situations a SUV would die in, a professor without a Nobel Prize might be just as good of an educator and researcher as one with one. So anyways, coming from California, I know that a lot of people consider the UC system as a whole because of its reputation before any specific UCs. But even if that isn't relevant here, if phrased properly (eg. "UCR has no Nobel Laureates on its faculty, unlike most/all/X number of schools in the UC system.") isn't that a fair comparison?--ShadowGuy 02:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Shadowguy. I like your analogy with the cars. I think it's perfectly reasonable to compare UCR to other "schools" in its "class" -- that is other "University of California" campuses or "other "national universities" (US News definition). In this case, the majority of UC's have Nobel laureates on faculty -- it clearly is a fair comparison based on that. I think part of th problem is that many individuals who perhaps attend UCR or are affiliated in some way with the university are appalled when they see anything negative written about their school -- they confuse this with "NPOV" and "bias," when in reality, this is just an objective relation of facts. In particular, numerous people (most recently ElKevbo) have attempted to express why they "feel" that the article is biased, but in the end, none of their arguments really pass basic scrutiny or merit -- this is because there really is no bias, there is only their "opinion" and "gut impression" due to their own personal biases. Thanks for your parallel example here. UCRGrad 23:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Princeton Review & US News & World Report Stats
   1. I know I'm in the minority, but all of these stats are pretty meaningless when just a few are mentioned. It's a poor attempt to provide balance in the article to pick the highest and lowest rankings and sling them at the audience hoping they can distinguish which rankings are most meaningful.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have a tough time convincing anybody that rankings and statistics published in US News and World Report from their annual college guide along with data from Princeton Review do NOT belong in an article about a university. As authoritative sources that are 100% germaine to a college article, and perhaps the gold-standard resources in this discipline, they are practically the benchmark reference for these Wikipedia entries. It's unfortunate that UCR does not rank well according to these resources, but that doesn't mean we should censor this important information. If certain readers do not "believe in rankings," that's their prerogative; however, it is not up to us to fail to provide them. UCRGrad 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I'm in the minority here in Wikipedia. These rankings are reviled by most academicians (myself included) but embraced by everyone else.

However, I stand by my statement that picking a few good stats and a few bad ones is a poor attempt to provide balance. Institutions are more complex than can be conveyed by a handful of quantitative statistics, no matter how good or poor the methodology used to calculate them. --ElKevbo 21:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that institutions are very complex. Rankings are an attempt to consolidate those complex variables and provide comparative statistics based on things that academicians think are important. Furthermore, if you'll notice, I didn't just "pick a few good stats and a few bad stats." I picked the ones that I thought are extremely important and ones that people look at often. If you disagree on the inclusion of a particular stat/rank, pleaset let me know. UCRGrad 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Biomed program
   1. Why do the "portable trailer-classrooms" and classes taught in the "basement of the Statistics building" merit mention other than to attempt to present the program in a negative light? The trailer-classrooms probably suck (I hate seeing them on campuses, too) but without further context it's not very useful. Is the program growing quicker than expected so the school is struggling to physically keep up with enrollment? Is the state refusing to adequately fund the institution?

1. 1. The classes taught in the basement is just a stupid observation. Is the institution expected to not use the space in the basement? Is there something wrong teaching class in a building typically used for another subject? Why in the world does this even merit mention???

I have already defended this ad nauseum, but before you showed up. Essentially, the fact that medical school courses are taught in a basement and a trailer are important pieces of information about the quality of facilities and resources of the UCR/UCLA program. Medical school education is resource-intensive and requires state-of-the-art facilities. This is why not every major university trains doctors, but those that do have an obligation to provide these resources/facilities to their future-physicians. Thus, mentioning the basement/trailer is not an attempt to present the program in a negative light," but rather a well-informed means of providing factual and usable information to readers.

In case you are not familiar with medical education, even 3rd-tier medical schools, and schools in the Carribbean have dedicated and appropriate classrooms, laboratories, libraries, computers, media centers, auditorims, etc. to train young doctors. It is unique and interesting that UCR instead uses portable trailers and the basement of the Statistics building. The next time you see your doctor, ask him/her if HE/SHE went to medschool in a trailer. UCRGrad 21:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide any citations for anything you have just said?

This is based on considerable experience in this area. If you are not familiar with medical education, then you should not be attempting to make changes to this specific aspect of the article. Wikipedia relies on EXPERTS to contribute to these articles. People should edit only what they are experienced in. It would be inappropriate for me to go over to the "horse breeding" article and make demands to prove obvious things (like asking for evidence that horses are mammals). If you happen to know any physicians, feel free to ask them if they know of any medschools that teach their classes in trailers. Don't be surprised if they laugh at you and say "no." UCRGrad 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem, my friend. Answer the questions, please. --ElKevbo 16:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly (similar to your incorrect application of "petitio principi" above). You clearly are not an expert on medical education, however, this premise was never used to conclude that you were wrong, etc. -- therefore, ad hominem does not apply. People who are not familiar with logic tend to use this term overzealously whenever they "think" it may apply (read: incorrectly). At any rate, it is perfectly acceptable of me to point out that you are not sufficiently experienced enough with medical education to understand that these statements are so self-evident that they do not require a reference (nor is one likely to exist), just as it would be ridiculous of me to demand a reference that horses are mammals (though a reference for that should exist). This is why I remind you that Wikipedia relies on EXPERTS to edit their articles. I do not edit the horse breeding article, nor should you be trying to edit the section on the UCR/UCLA program. UCRGrad 06:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Answer the question.

Oh, and while you're at it, try to find a source for your (unrelated to the issue at hand) claim that Wikipedia relies on experts to edit articles as I can't find a source for that claim anywhere. In fact, it runs counter to the spirit of Wikipedia to suggest that only certain people can edit articles. --ElKevbo 07:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And what specific classes are taught in these buildings and what resources are available in these buildings? And what resources are required for those classes that are lacking in those buildings? I assume (cognizant of all the dangers therein) that lecture-style classes are taught in those spaces. If that assumption is correct, what's wrong with this and why is it notable? I assume that UCR partners with UCLA precisely so UCR doesn't have to waste its resources duplicating resources already available at UCLA.

If you are not familiar with medical education, then you should not be attempting to make changes to this specific aspect of the article. Furthermore, if you are not even familiar with the UCR/UCLA program, then why are you going over your head here? MSI courses are taught in the basement and MSII courses are taught in the trailers. Happy? UCR does not "partner" with UCLA. UCR/UCLA is one of the joint programs of the UCLA School of Medicine - it is designed to increase the number of physicians practicing in the underserved Inland Empire. UCRGrad 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, those are just sad, ad hominem arguments. And how do you not define a "joint program" as a partnership? --ElKevbo 16:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What is sad is that you are again attempting to apply "ad hominem" incorrectly. To reiterate, it is acceptable for me to point out that your lack of experience in this field makes you unqualified to be editing this section of the article. To go back to my example, I no absolutely nothing about horsebreeding. Suppose someone in the discussion mentions that horses have long manes. Would it be fair of me to go in and demand that they provide evidence that a) horses have manes, b) that their manes are long, and c) who defines how long is "long" anyway? No...because the fact that horses have long manes is already obvious to a horse breeder, and it only wastes their time to make these demands. Furthermore, since we are in discussion, the horse breeders have no OBLIGATION to prove this to me, just as I have no obligation to prove these facts (that are self-evident to people experienced in this field) to you. If you have evidence that my justification for including mention of the sub-par facility is incorrect, then please present it. Otherwise, you are asking for evidence that horses have manes, per my example above. UCRGrad 07:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all very interesting but you still haven't answered the questions. --ElKevbo 16:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep going - you're starting to get close to convincing me. Cite some sources. --ElKevbo 21:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is in the basement, does not make it bad. The so called basement, yes I know the numbers all have a B in front of them, is really the ground floor. To get into this basement, you have to actually walk UP a set of stairs to the doorway. Classes held in this "Basement" are atually held in a lecture hall. As for there trailers as class rooms, I am not sure how up to date the current source is. The UCR campus map has not been updated to show the biological science's building yet. Also, were is the scale on those "trailer sized" buldings. As of now I don't think the source is strong enough. In your defence though, I have not been able to find any citation to prove the opposite. So if you can find a better source that would be awesome. I am also not sure if the biomed program is moving into the new biological sciences building, but there is a lot of stuff being moved around their offices since the new building opened. It seems that if we keep arguing, no one will win because the information will be outdated. http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=1339 I just find that thought funny though. --jahamal 01:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen. Get a UCR map. Then walk over to the "biomedical teaching complex." Look at it. Note that they are a set of trailers. Note that there are students in them. Then come back here and tell us that I was correct. It'll take 15 minutes out of your day. Then we can end this discussion. UCRGrad 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it relevant and notable? Should we add the locations of all classes in this encyclopedia article? --ElKevbo 16:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have already explained why this is both relevant and notable. Please do not ask questions that have already been answered - rather, it is better to respond directly to what has already been written. Secondly, your counterexample lacks merit because as far as I know, other UCR classrooms are appropriate and are not remarkable. On the other hand, if computer science classes were taught on vacuum tube computers that required punch cards, that WOULD be notable. Similarly, if swimming classes were taught in bathtubs, that would also be notable. If medical school is being taught in basements and trailers, it is notable. UCRGrad 07:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry UCRGrad, but you're full of it. I found some information on Google, and it's clearly obvious that you DO have an agenda: you are attempting, through rather subtle means, to smear UC Riverside. I think that what you are doing is trying to damage UC Riverside's name and/or trying to make those associated with UC Riverside feel bad about themselves.

Look at this:

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=160432 "[UC Riverside's] not worth it. Your life, your education, and 4 years of your life are not worth the savings. Go somewhere else.

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/archive/index.php/t-149891-p-2.html

"UCRGrad, why did you stay all four years?"

Cuz I was dumb.

"i made a horrible decision after highschool and ended up at R, but i'm trying to get the hell out."

You're not alone. 15% of UCR freshmen LEAVE after 1 year. That's 1 in 8. I wish you the best of luck getting out of Riverside.

"Oh, you have to look at UCOP data to get that. UCR has the highest percentage of students coming from low academic performance index high schools in the UC System. These are the students who took 1 AP in high school and scored a "3," and posted the results on their fridge, to the glee of their parents who are so proud that they will be going to a UC school instead of selling dope down the street like the rest of the family.

"I forget who wrote this, and I think it's a little ****-poor, but it sums it up kinda well: "Graduating at the top of your UCR class is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

UCRGrad is either some UCLA/USC/Berkeley troll trying to damage UC Riverside's reputation ... or he is a truly disgruntled UC Riverside alum. Seems UCRGrad claims to be the latter, but you are not doing yourself or anybody else any good with these kinds of comments you made on the collegeconfidential page. Wikipedia is suppose to provide OBJECTIVE information; it's clear that you are trying to give UC Riverside a negative slant. And based on the comments I found on collegeconfidential, that is CLEARLY your agenda. Teknosoul02 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems you are trying to blame all of your life's struggles on your UC Riverside degree. That's really pathetic; I know TONS of UCLA grads who are struggling through life. And even THEY don't hate their alma mater to the degree of vitriol you seem to have towards Riverside. Teknosoul02 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. I do NOT HATE UC Riverside. If there is someone on another forum who shares the same name "UCRGrad," it is purely by coincidence, although I will acknowledge that I am familiar with some of threads you have excerpted. All of my contributions on Wikipedia have been well-supported, referenced, and are designed to provide an informative and accurate depiction of the campus. As always, if you have a concern about any segment of the article, you should post them here. If you have more conspiracy theories, ad hominems, and baseless accusations, you should just well, keep them to yourself. Thanks. UCRGrad 05:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You claim that you "do NOT HATE" UC Riverside, yet you have mentioned numerous times about how unhappy UC Riverside students are and how so many of them leave campus during the weekend. You also point out the Riverside's high attrition rate, especially after the students' first year. You also emphasize that UC Riverside has the lowest alumni giving rate in the nation (according to you), and that you attribute this to the vast majority of UC Riverside alumni being completely disgruntled and bitter towards their alma mater. At one point in this discussion page, you even admit that you refuse to donate back to your alma mater (if this is indeed your alma mater, and you're not some UCLA/USC/Berkeley troll in disguise) and that you didn't like the place at all!

A couple of sections in this article make me speculate that you are trying to sully Riverside's reputation.

1.) The constant reference that UC Riverside has "no Nobel Laureates" on its faculty. WHO GIVES A F$#% whether Riverside has any Nobel Laureates. Several universities ranked in the Top 50 have NO NOBEL LAUREATES on their faculty. And FOUR (Santa Cruz, Davis, Merced, and Riverside) out of 9 UC campuses have NO NOBEL LAUREATES on their faculty. Five out of 9 hardly constitutes "most". Why do you have to feel that UC Riverside having no Nobel Laureates serve as a focal point? All you are doing is trying to sabotage Riverside and strongly infer that because of Riverside having no Nobel Laureates, it automatically offers an inferior education.

I will not respond to arguments that contain profanity and accusations. If you are not mature enough to participate in this discussion, please go elsewhere. Thanks. UCRGrad 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

2.) Why the constant comparison to other UC schools? Riverside should be judged on its own merits, and should not be compared to the other UC schools. Are you implying that UC Riverside is a stain to the UC system? (Admittedly, this is the impression I got from a lot of people when the topic of UC Riverside is brought up.)

A comparison to other UC schools is only natural since UCR is a one of the UC campuses. An important question people have with ANY UC school would be: "how does UC XYZ compare to the other UC's?" It goes without saying. Just because UCR doesn't stack up well against its counterparts is NOT a reason to exclude such a comparison. UCRGrad 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

3.) On this article, you wrote: "Naturally, a large proportion of incoming freshmen arrive with inadequate preparation for college-level math and English -- 70% of entering students are not ready for calculus (requiring remedial coursework in pre-calculus), and 50%-60% are not able to read and write at the college-level (requiring remediation in English)." Where's the proof? Just b/c some professor "estimates" this statistic, doesn't mean its true. This part should be deleted. It's completely meaningless and there are no real statistics to back this up. This is nothing more than a professor throwing this percentage out without actual evidence.

Read the reference. The evidence is not based on hearsay from a professor. I replaced the original reference that people complained about a LONG time ago. UCRGrad 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

4.) I think you should just leave the stats alone as that. You should not say "UC Riverside has the lowest blah blah blah..." Applicants can judge the statistics on their own merit without your constant "UC Riverside *sucks* because it has the lowest standards, blah blah blah..."

Readers will only be able to make these comparisons if we include data from ALL other UC campuses, which would be burdensome. Such data would belong in a UC article, not a UCR article. In a UC article, the goal is to be concise, and if UCR is ranked last in an area, it should be mentioned. UCRGrad 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

5.) On this article, you wrote: "95% of UCR alumni do not donate back to their alma mater, based on an alumni giving rate of 5%, the lowest alumni giving rate of any national university[23][26]. In comparison, the rate at UCLA and UC Davis are 3-times and 2-times as high, respectively. This low giving ratio may be a function of low student happiness. According to The Princeton Review's 2004 publication of "Best 351 College Rankings", UC Riverside ranked #12 nationwide for "Least Happy Students.". Most state universities (even top notch ones) have very low alumni giving rates. UCLA's 15% alumni giving rate isn't exactly something to be proud of, you know. WOW, UCLA's 15% alumni giving rate kicks a$$! Maybe we should put this statistic on UCLA's Wikipedia page. UCLA students are so happy about their alma mater that they donate back to their school at the exceptional rate of 15%! Let's celebrate!

I did not want to add comparison data to other UCLA or any other UC's for alumni giving. Somebody else in your camp demanded that this be added and I did not object. UCRGrad 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And where did you come up with the correlation of low alumni giving rate to low student happiness? I'm guessing it's from your own personal experience of this school.

I did not add that line in either. That was Amerique. Take it up with him. UCRGrad 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

6.) On this article, you wrote: "The Inland Empire area is sometimes referred to as "The 909," which makes reference to the region's former primary area code but also carries a negative association with trailer parks, white supremacists, and cows. The region has also been the subject of frequent mockery by a variety of websites, television shows, radio stations, and bumper stickers[43]. Despite the 2004 prefix change to "951," the nickname remains in use[44]."

I see that you actually used "Urban Dictionary" as a source for this article (footnote 44). LOL! Urban Dictionary is hardly something I'd consider to be a verifiable source...

Again, you did not check the reference. I am not using Urban Dictionary as a citation for "trailer parks, white supremacists, and cows" reference. The urban dictionary reference can be deleted because footnote 43 substantiates everything in the paragraph anyway. UCRGrad 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, you claim that you have never posted on collegeconfidential and that the UCRGrad there just happens to be someone else. Bullocks. The UCRGrad who posts on collegeconfidential has similar writing styles to yours, and even uses the same statistics you constantly emphasize on this article (e.g., 1 out of 8 freshmen permenantly leave UC Riverside, UC Riverside has the lowest blah blah blah). His writing style and constant use of references from this article makes it NOT a mere coincidence that he "shares" the same name as yours.

Unless you have any hard evidence, and "similarity in writing style" doesn't cut it, I'd have to say that you're way out of line here. Furthermore, even IF we are the same person (which I obviously do not stipulate), it doesn't change the validity of ANY of my arguments or the content I have added -- i.e. it's irrelevant either way. UCRGrad 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And since you are such an "expert" on UC Riverside, let me ask you: If 1 out of 8 freshmen leave UC Riverside after their first year, where do they go? Do most of them attempt to transfer to "better" schools? Or is this because the majority of them are just idiots and couldn't handle college work at all? Teknosoul02 12:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because I am an "expert" on UCR, it doesn't necessarily mean that I happen to know where each and every freshmen that leaves UCR goes. I presume that they either fail out or wish to leave on their own. UCRGrad 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. UCRGrad 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"::I did not want to add comparison data to other UCLA or any other UC's for alumni giving. Somebody else in your camp demanded that this be added and I did not object. UCRGrad 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)"

Wait a minute, you seem to have no problems comparing Riverside to the rest of the UCs when it casts Riverside in a bad light, yet when it turns out that UC Riverside alumni giving rate isn't so dismal (especially since the "much better" UCs don't have THAT much higher alumni giving rates), you didn't want to make that comparison? You constantly compared UC Riverside to the other UCs and pointed out how UC is dead last in all the relevant categories (academics, student quality life and happiness, etc.), but you didn't want to add comparison data of Riverside's alumni giving rate to the other UCs? Funny, it's a bit hypocritical, no? Also, do you have any actualy PROOF that UC Riverside's alumni giving rate is the lowest in the country? I don't see any outside sources referencing this.

Wait, make up your mind. First, you had a problme with me comparing the alumni giving rate of UCR to UCLA. Now that you find out that I wasn't the one who wanted to include it, you now have a problem with me NOT wanting to make the comparison. Briefly, UCR's rate is dismal - it's LAST in the nation (and yes it is appropriately cited) and it's 2-3x LOWER than other UC's. I really don't see what else there is to say about this. UCRGrad 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the alumni giving rate, there's a constant emphasis that UC ranks "dead last" nationally in alumni giving rate (which you seem to like to point out in this article). I guess you'd rather say that then point out that UC Riverside's alumni giving rate is only marginally worse than the much more "prestigious" UCLA's (a school I'm assuming you wish to this day you could get in and you blame your bitterness in life on being rejected from that school and having to go to the "worse" UC in the nation according to you and what you've written in this article).

a) I never used the term "dead last." b) a rate that is 2-3x lower is hardly "only marginally worse" and c) FROM HERE ON OUT, IF ANY OF YOUR ARGUMENTS CONTAIN ACCUSATIONS OR PERSONAL ATTACKS, I WILL ASK YOU TO RESTATE YOUR POINT WITHOUT THESE EXTRANEOUS COMMENTS IF YOU WOULD LIKE A RESPONSE. I APPRECIATE YOUR CIVILITY IN THIS MATTER. UCRGrad 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, since you accused me of using profanity the last time, let me make it clear: it's irrevelant to point out that UC Riverside has "no nobel laureates" on its faculty. Again, several Top 50 universities (for example, BC, Georgia Tech) do not have any Nobel Laureates and those schools seem to be doing fine. Should we go to the wikipedia pages of Boston College and Georgia Tech and point out that "unlike most Top 50 institutions in the US News rankings, Boston College and Georgia Tech have no Nobel Laureates on its faculty". Also, only 5 out of 9 UC schools have nobel Laureates. That hardly constitutes "most". That is my only point.

Thanks. Teknosoul02 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already addressed ad nauseum why it IS relevant to include the absence of nobel laureates at UCR - I refer you to the discussion above as well as the archived TALK page. I have changed "most" to "the majority" to reflect your concern about wording. Thanks. UCRGrad 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC

Comments about the alumni giving rate:

":::Wait, make up your mind. First, you had a problme with me comparing the alumni giving rate of UCR to UCLA. Now that you find out that I wasn't the one who wanted to include it, you now have a problem with me NOT wanting to make the comparison. Briefly, UCR's rate is dismal - it's LAST in the nation (and yes it is appropriately cited) and it's 2-3x LOWER than other UC's. I really don't see what else there is to say about this. UCRGrad 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)"

No, the way I see it, you originally did not want to compare the alumni giving rate of Riverside to UCLA b/c in reality, UCLA's alumni giving rate isn't all that much higher. 15% (UCLA's highly successful alumni giving rate ... apparently) compared to 5% (UC Riverside's abysmal alumni giving rate ... apparently) shows that there IS a marginal difference between the two schools. We are not talking about 30% compared to 5%. Instead, we are talking about a 10% difference. Yet, on the other hand, you have chosen to phrase this in a way (saying that UCLA's alumni giving rate is three times higher than Riverside's) in order to make Riverside look bad. There is no way around this; it's obvious you did NOT want to include the comparison, but when you were forced to, you tried to make the comparison in a way to make Riverside look as bad as possible. 15% compared to 5% isn't a major difference, but you tried to phrase it in a way (UCLA's alumni giving rate is three times as successful as Riverside's) to try and make Riverside and it's alumni feel bad about themselves.

A few things:

1) When I originally did not want to compare alumni giving rates of UCR vs. other UC's, it was because I did not think that this figure was so important that we needed to list statistics for other campuses as well. We cannot obviously list "comparison stats" for each and every number we throw in this article without it becoming cumbersome and superfluous.

2) I've said this many times, but 15-20% vs. 5% is more than a "marginal difference"...it's a factor of 2-3x!!! That's a HUGE difference. Plus, UCR ranks LAST among ALL national universities for alumni giving! In other words, UCR does very poorly in this statistic and no effort should be made to "sugar coat" the numbers - UCR is what it is.

3) Unless you have some kind of objective evidence (rather than mere speculation), I would appreciate it if you didn't throw in these baseless accusations about my intent. I have no idea why I would want to make "Riverside and its alumni feel bad about themselves." I'm trying to write an accurate article - aren't you?

UCRGrad 05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

":::a) I never used the term "dead last.""

Haven't you constantly referred Riverside's alumni giving rate as last in the nation?

The term "dead last" is excessive and would not be appropriate here. The term "last" is objective and accurately describes UCR's nationwide rank for alumni giving. I have never used the term "dead last" in the article - please try to quote me accurately. Thanks. UCRGrad 05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

":I have already addressed ad nauseum why it IS relevant to include the absence of nobel laureates at UCR - I refer you to the discussion above as well as the archived TALK page. I have changed "most" to "the majority" to reflect your concern about wording. Thanks. UCRGrad 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC"

Fair enough, but I still disagree that the whole "Riverside has no Nobel Laureates on its faculty" should be included. I have read the reasons for you including this--and I still think it doesn't really matter. Teknosoul02 05:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree, but without addresing my arguments and/or providing new ones of your own, your disagreement is only an "opinion" and should not affect the article's content. UCRGrad 05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Studentsreview.com

The fact that Studentsreview.com is being refernced on wikipedia shows that this article has little credibility. It's obviously a blatant attempt to cast a bad impression on UC Riverside. The studentsreview.com survey MUST be removed--it only adds credence that this article has a strong negative POV. Teknosoul02 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Student happiness

As further evidence that UCRGrad has an agenda to smear UC Riverside, check out this dialogue from this very own discussion page:

"I fail to see how "malintent" was demonstrated by including this information about the campus. If you recall, there were numerous sources that supported the name "UC Retards" as a nickname, however, none of them were stringent enough by WP standards, and we were unable to use them. By not acknowledging that "UC Retards" is a common expansion of the acronym "UCR," you are either a) exceedingly biased, or b) not sufficiently familiar with the campus to be an editor of this article. UCRGrad 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)"

The fact that UCRGrad INSISTED on calling UC Riverside students "UC Retards" shows that he obviously is trying to sabotage this school's reputation in general. Luckily, UCRGrad has the common sense to realize that xoxohth, collegeconfidential, and studentsreview do not count as "legitimate" sources. And who acknowledges that UC Retards is a common expansion of the UCR antonym? Why UCLA/Berkeley/USC TROLLS of course!! But why were you so bitter about your experiences at UC Riverside to the point that you were willing to call yourself a "UC Retard" since you actually graduated from this proud instituion that you so despise?

Exactly. And as further proof, reading this today was the first time I have ever heard of this UC Retards thing... and I spent four years there. 66.214.118.69 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And further, since you earlier claim that UCRGrad on the collegeconfidential site is not the same UCRGrad as you, the posts appear to be au contraire:

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/archive/index.php/t-149891-p-3.html

"Same name, different guy. Although I agree with everything UCRGrad has written on Wiki."

"UCRGrad is the one who hijacked the wiki article."

Then again, I'm not exactly a big collegeconfidential fan seeing that the UC Riverside message boards there are infested with bitter UCLA/Berkeley/USC trolls who are trying to make UC Riverside grads feel inferior about themselves.

Please see my comments below under "Note to TeknoSoul02" - as promised before, I cannot and will not respond to arguments that contain such accusatory and uncivil language. Thanks. UCRGrad 13:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Student Life

1. The statement "Nevertheless, only 30% of students remain at UCR for the weekend" is meaningless without context. Is this high or low? Why is this the case?

I don't think it's meaningless. Anybody with half a brain could tell you that the statement means that on weekends, less than a third of students stay on campus. How is this hard to comprehend? In fact, it's meaning is so self-evident, US News lists this statistis without further elaboration. Whether the figure is high or low depends on your perspective...and it's up to the reader to decide. UCRGrad 02:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

1. More meaningless statistics without context - "Its surrounding community has had frequent problems with racial violence. 148 Hate crimes were reported in the Inland Empire (roughly 2 every 5 days), with 5 reported on the UCR campus alone in 2004." What is "frequent?" How do these statistics compare with other UC campuses and other universities?

Um, 2 every 5 days is a few a week. That's frequent. I have no idea how it compares to other UC campuses, but in the article I referenced, it is mentioned that the rate of hate crime is INCREASING in the Riverside area, but it is DECREASING statewide. Notice how you've been reduced to nitpicking a few words here and there. There really is no bias, is there. UCRGrad 02:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to provide answers to the questions... --ElKevbo 16:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand something here. I don't need to prove that hate crime is occuring MORE OFTEN on the UCR campus or that more than XYZ crimes per ABC days is defined as "frequent." The threshhold in wikipedia is the verifiable fact, and I have met that burden easily (read the corresponding reference). If you would like the statement changed, you would have to either a) provide a superior-quality reference that contradicts the information or b) prove that it is irrelevant by somehow showing that the hate crime in Riverside is lower than most of CA (it is not), or c) something similar. UCRGrad 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I question why the paragraphs beginning with "According to 2003-05..." and "Riverside is part of what some locals refer to as the "smog belt"..." are in the Student Life section. This is more of a question of organization than of POV, though. They would be better if moved to new section describing the surrounding area.

I think a description of the surrounding area is 100% pertinent to "student life." Are you suggesting that students are not exposed to the surrounding area? UCRGrad 02:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting it's out of place in the Student Life section and may fit better elsewhere in the article. --ElKevbo 16:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Where? UCRGrad 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1. The statement ""The 909", which makes reference to the region's former primary area code but also carries somewhat of a negative connotation" lacks a citation or supporting evidence.

Oh, there's a boatload of references on "the 909." The statement in the article is a "nice" version of what "The 909" actually refers to. I'll look for a good reference. UCRGrad 02:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is already a citation there, but more can be found. Insert-Belltower 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa - are you actually suggesting that UrbanDictionary.com rises to the level of an acceptable, verifiable source? Ha ha ha! I think not. I'm sure you can find a better source. --ElKevbo 16:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well you were incorrect when you wrote that the statement "lacks a citation or supporting evidence." There is a difference between the presence of a citation and one that you object to. UCRGrad 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, NONE of your objections support your claim that the article does not meet NPOV standards. So far, you've done the following: a) request definition of "national university" - this is not even related to bias

b) objected to inclusion of "lack of Nobel laureates" - but I have addressed all of your arguments previously, and you've not presented any new ones; either way, I don't see how this is related to bias either

c) you've asked a lot of questions about what typical medical education is, but you clearly have no clue in this area - I've asked you not to edit portions of the article you are not familiar with; either way, I've explained my reasons, and there is nothing biased about mentioning buildings that are subpar (especially since we already mention a few notable buildings on campus in a very positive light)

d) you have a problem with mention of racism - however, these facts are well-referenced, and you have yet to disprove any of them or demonstrate that it is irrelvant.

e) you argued that the statement about "the 909" lacked citation or evidence, even though it was already referenced

f) you objected to the word "lacking" in front of football team, and it was changed.

To summarize, you've only made a few technical and unsupported objections to the article. EVEN IF all of your points of contention were correct (which I don't believe they are), there STILL would not be enough "bias" in total to call this article NPOV. Therefore, I am removing the tag, but will continue to work with you on these minor issues. UCRGrad 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Using bold text doesn't add weight to your assertions. Answer the questions you've been asked and stop dodging the issues and accusing me of ignorance. --ElKevbo 16:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The bold text essentially summarizes all of your points and illustrates how while you bring up several points of contention, you NEVER demonstrate how there is sufficient bias in this article to warrant an NPOV. For instance, if you demand to know the meaning of "national university," that's fine -- but if you don't explain how this causes the article to be biased, you can't put up an NPOV tag. Furthermore, you should know that if you ask an irrelevant question (or one that is immaterial), I am not obliged to answer it. I have answered all of your relevant questions. In cases where your question was not relevant or material to this discussion, I have explained why. Also, in several circumstances, you have attempted to place the burden of justifying a statement on ME, where it was actually YOUR responsibilty to demonstrate that a statement should be removed. I have already addressed all of your points of contention sufficiently. If you object, you should address my points directly, rather than say "please answer my questions" repeatedly (because that gets us nowhere). Thanks. Finally, unless you can demonstrate how your concerns with this article as a whole add bias to this article warranting an NPOV, you are not justified in placing the tag. THanks. UCRGrad 17:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm done beating my head against this wall. You are clearly convinced that you are correct and refuse to entertain the notion of discussion to the point of ignoring questions and engaging in ad hominem attacks. You have even refused to consider mediation. This article is clearly POV and I am saddened that there appears to be nothing further I can do until other editors view this page and see it for what it is. --ElKevbo 18:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I concur with ElKevbo that the article is clearly POV. I also believe that UCRGrad is giving evasive and dilatory answers in an attempt to establish "ownership" of the article in violation of WP:OWN. The lack of Nobel Prize winners on the faculty is not notable because the same fact applies to the vast majority of universities and colleges in North America. It is as silly as, say, writing in Wikipedia law firm articles that a law firm has no partners who have ever clerked with the U.S. Supreme Court, which applies to the vast majority of law firms in the world. It is much more important to indicate that a substantial number of a particular firm's partners have clerked with the Supreme Court.

I also agree that UCRGrad is unable to grasp what good references look like. Take a look at the citations I have put into the Lawyer article. As I have argued in many places around Wikipedia, including Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, it is not that hard to write down a citation or two every time one goes to the public library (I make a point of doing it).

But anyway, UCRGrad seems determined to "own" this article, I'm not a graduate of Riverside (I went to a much more prestigious UC school), and I agree with UCRGrad's general point that Riverside does have a well-deserved bad reputation, so I'm not going to directly contest UCRGrad for now. Actually, I'm busy with figuring how to fix the mess in Freeway. At some point some admin will come across this mess and then I suppose an arbitration will begin, but I'm not going to be the one to start it. --Coolcaesar 19:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Cool Caesar. I can see how you might get the impression that I "own" this article, but in reality, I am simply defending the article from vandalism by individuals who wish to remove certain truthful facts because they feel it sheds a negative light on the school. If you'll notice, I have rarely objected when individuals wish to ADD information to the article. Wikipedia articles rely on multiple editors to make contributions to the text, and I think that's awesome. That being said, it simply isn't fair when people who are either inexperienced with UC Riverside and/or are affiliated/associated with the school and wish to artifically promote its image on Wiki try to remove important information for arbitrary and inappropriate reasons. This has been the point of contention for a long time, and really, it's quite sad. Nevertheless, there's a fine difference between "taking over" an article, so to speak, and attempting to preserve its quality and content. That being said, whenever anyone has made a legitimate argument as to why XYZ should be removed, I have not objected at all. As I've said before, I am not an unreasonable person.

Now, to address to things you've brought up.

1) You argue that it is inappropriate to mention UCR's lack of Nobel laureates by citing a parallel example: that in an article about a law-firm, it would be inappropriate to mention that none of its partners have ever clerked with the Supreme Court, reasoning that this applies to the vast majority of law-firms in the world. This would be a good counterargument if and only if the same were true for UCR. Unfortunately, it is not. As SocalAlum has referenced very well, almost all other campuses of the University of California DO have Nobel Laureates on their faculty. Even the lower-tier campus UCI has 3. Thus, your example would be more parallel if, say, we were considering an article about an "elite law-firm," one that, for the sake of argument, hires only top candidates out of Ivy League law schools, for which we will stipulate that a significant portion of "elite law firms" have partners who have clerked with the Supreme Court. It then follows that if one particular elite law firm did not have any of these supreme court clerks, that would be notable. HOWEVER, if we were talking about any ordinary law firm (not an "elite" law firm), in which it is rare to have these supreme court clerks, then it wouldn't be informative to mention their absence. Likewise, if we were talking about Riverside Community College, we should NOT mention the absence of Nobel faculty, since it is exceedingly rare for a community college to have them.

2) You criticize my quality of references, stating that it is very easy to jot down a couple of citation each time I go to the library. I do not appreciate this at all. I have worked very hard to come up with the best quality references AVAILABLE. I will kindly remind you that we do not have double-blind placebo-controlled journal articles available for every fact out there. Thankfully, I am writing for Wikipedia, which has the standard of the "verifiable fact," with guidelines you might want to look at. If you believe a reference is inappropriate, please tell me which one and explain why. If you look at the history, you will notice that I have made great efforts to provide better references when people have criticized them specifically. Furthermore, I have even removed several statements in the past because an appropriate reference could not be located. Rather than criticize my references, perhaps you could contribute some as well. Thanks. UCRGrad 00:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm throwing my hat in the ring and agreeing with the others who say that the article is POV. UCR does indeed have a rather justifiably bad reputation, but in my, and seemingly everyone else's opinion, this is going a little bit overboard.

As far as the ongoing issue of Nobel laureates goes, UCRGrad has been repeatedly stating that UCR's lack of them is noteworthy due to the fact that "almost all other campuses of the University of California" have them, and "Even the lower-tier campus UCI has 3". First off, although it's kind of irrelevant, UCI is generally considered part of the mid-tier, so using UCI as a comparison between two of the lower-tier UCs doesn't work. Second, "almost all other campuses of the University of California" don't have Nobel laureates. Davis, Merced, Santa Cruz, and of course Riverside, lack them on their faculty. That's four out of the nine undergraduate campuses, hardly "most". I don't know what constitutes the definition of "rarity" as UCRGrad puts it, but 44% of the campuses hardly seems like a small number to me. Therefore, I personally don't see how mentioning this fact is relevant in the article.

I could go on, but I'm not about to give myself a headache over a Wikipedia article on UCR of all things. --K5pec 09:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point/counterargument. I never argued that Nobel laureates were RARE on the faculty of national universities. They certainly are not rare when it comes to UC campuses. I used both of those reasons to argue AGAINST the notion that we should not mention Nobel prizes because they are rare (which they are not). In fact, since many national universities, including the UC system, have Nobel laureates on their faculty, their absence at UCR is therefore notable. Mentioning the absence of Nobel laureates at UCR is no less relevant than mentioning the presence of Nobel laurates at UCI in their respective articles. UCRGrad 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, everything I said was ignored completely. I wasn't talking about national universities. If you notice (which you apparently didn't), I quoted you word for word when I stated "almost all other campuses of the University of California". Again, five undergraduate campuses out of nine hardly constitutes "almost all", so your insistance mentioning it in the article on that basis is flawed. Like others have stated before, it's a non-fact. If we're going to include that, we may as well include every other thing that 4/9ths of the campuses don't have. Anyway, this is going to be the extent of my contributions to the talk page. As I said earlier, I'm not going to expend too much energy arguing against an article which is looking more and more like a violation of WP:OWN, as well as a clear POV violation. --K5pec 00:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if I stipulated that "ALMOST ALL other campuses of the University of California" should instead read "MOST campuses of the University of California," it WOULDN'T CHANGE the validity of the my argument. The fact that Nobel laureates are at least somewhat prevalent among UC campuses (in this case, MOST campuses) means that the COUNTERARGUMENT that we should not include this fact because "Nobel Laureates are rare" is defeated. Recall that "Nobel prizes are rare" was one of the arguments made for why we should not mention their absence at UCR. Finally, you attempt to make a reductio ad absurdium argument "If we're going to include that, we may as well include every other thing that 4/9ths of the campuses don't have." Unfortunately, your statement does not draw a parallel, because the presence of Nobel prize-winning faculty is already prima facie relevant to an article about a national university, because it is a surrogate marker of the a school's recognition, caliber of research, ability to attract top faculty, ability to draw top grants/funding by a Nobel laureate, and is typically a feature of well-known schools. Honestly, you are entitled to your opinion. I respect that you "believe" that there is a violation of NPOV and WP:OWN, but if you are unable to justify your "opinion" with facts and evidence that survive scrutiny (like we are doing here), then at the end, your "opinion" is probably just that and nothing more. UCRGrad 21:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Athletics

1. I dispute the choice of the word "lacking" to describe the non-presence of a football team. The word carries a negative connotation which is unnecessary.

The non-presence of a football team in a school that has DIVISION I status is definitely deserving of the word "LACKING." However, this is such a minor point that you've blown out of proportion, it really doesn't matter either way. UCRGrad 02:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What? Division I status has nothing to do with football, per se. It's *enormously* expensive to start a football program. According to the NCAA, there are 92 institutions in Division IAAA, including such noteworthy and respected institutions as DePaul, George Washington, and Marquette. I agree that it is (slightly) interesting to note that UCR is in Division IAAA but to cast it in a negative light is wrong. --ElKevbo 16:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the best way to sum up my point of view is that there is a definite negative connotation to this article. I edit and watch over several university article in Wikipedia and this is the only example of *systematic* negative bias I have ever encountered.

If you read other university article, you'll find that they do indeed sound different. The reason is that the articles are typically edited by students and alumni of the school who only present "stand-out" facts and positive aspects of their school. Reading other college articles is like opening up a recruitment brochure, in that they are riddle with POSITIVE BIAS. On the other hand, I happen to have extensive knowledge about UCR, and I can present a true and balanced perspective along with relevant news article and facts about the school that you are relevant, verifiable, and are very informative. That is why you see such a difference. There is no bias in this article. UCRGrad 02:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe others share my point of view and I encourage them to add points of contention. I welcome all discussion of these and other topics relevant to this article. --ElKevbo 18:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe others share my point of view as well. I also believe that many UCR students, alumni, and associated individuals would like to see a positive bias on this article too. UCRGrad 02:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I agree with what you've said here and wish some more serious attempts to address these issues would be made or at least considered. –Tifego^(t) _{17:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)}

I look forward to addressing these issues and others. UCRGrad 02:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have altered and slightly rewritten the Athletics section. The negative connetation from the lack of a football team is not necessary. The fact is that UCR does not have a football team, but isn't it more significant and interesting for the reader to tell them what they do have? I believe so, which is why I added the 17 intercollegiate sports that UCR does have. The historical fact regarding the demise of the football team is listed. I also question the necessity of the information regarding the pep band. It is not directly related to athletics, as the band only performs for two of the 17 sports. It seems that the original author seemed to allow the aforementioned negative bias carry over to this writing as well. Thanks ~~Bitterguy06 10:19 15 June 2006

OF COURSE it is important to mention the lack of a football team! Are you kidding me? When there is even the mere mention of "athletics" or "sports" at a university, it is FOOTBALL that people ask about first. That goes without saying. The absence of a football team would be highly noteworthy at any major university. With regard to the absence of a pep band, it ALSO is notable that UCR does lacks one, and instead is forced to rent one. Whether or not the pep band plays for only 2 of the 17 sports at UCR is entirely irrelevant. I understand why you might "think" there is a "negative bias," but in reality, you have confused "conveyance of negative facts" with "negative bias" -- they are two different things. Thanks. UCRGrad 02:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are superimposing your opinion on the rest of the world. Just because YOU feel that football is the most important sport does not necessarily make it so. People are not going to look at athletics to see what the Athletics department does not have. I think we agree that it is noteworthy, and deserves to be mentioned, but not as the first item in the article. ~~Bitterguy06 21:42 25 June 2006

I agree with Bitterguy06's position on the football mention, but think the pep band information should be mentioned as well, but probably phrased differently. I would even go so far as to say that the mention of football programs is only noteworthy and relevant at universities that have them, but that's probably just another aspect of the biased-filled world I live in.--Amerique 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Campus and Environment

i'm begining to gather references for a new section on UCR's campus & environment. This section will incorporate the info already in the Student Life section in the paragraph begining "On the other side of California State Route 60..." and the paragraph on smog. I will only edit this material to the extent I have to make it work within the new section. Also, the entry on KUCR will be moved to Student life, and eventually expanded. if you have any insights or issues with any of this let me know.--Amerique 16:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, i'm finished for now, but i have more material related to the effect of smog on enrollment at UCR, (it almost shut the campus down in the 70s) that should probably go into History. The section on the Palm Desert Campus should probably round out the History section, also. i am curious as to what regular visitors to this page think of these contributions. best,--Amerique 00:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Opps, I tried archiving earlier discussions and accidentially cut off the preceding argument and my own postings. Sorry about that. In any case, I'm trying to get the discussion here off to a fresh start on improving the article. To that effect, I've created a new section on the UCR campus and environment, have added critical contextual information to history, and have created headers for various sections to clarify content and facilitate organization. I've already added most of what I wanted in terms of new content, but will continue editing to make the UCR article a featured article on wikipedia.--Amerique 20:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured article status?

It is entirely possible to bring the UCR article up to featured status. For a comparable model, check out the article on Michigan State University. Note how this article handles negative information graciously and as a matter of fact in examples such as:

Like other large American universities, MSU has a large number of teaching assistants teaching upper-level courses. This led The Princeton Review in 2005 to rank MSU eleventh worst in the category of "teaching assistants teach too many upper-level courses".[21]

Michigan State ranks 77th in the world, according to a Shanghai Jiao Tong University study,[22] with U.S. News & World Report's ranking MSU 74th in the U.S.[23]

Global leader by 2012

Since the end of the Hannah era, Michigan State has shifted its focus from increasing the size of its student body to improving its national and global reputation, which has not been easy. In recent years, "town and gown" relations have soured as students and permanent residents looked at each other with increasing hostility. Tensions worsened when East Lansing erupted in riots in 1997,[10] 1998,[11] and 1999.[12] After several years without major incidents, another disturbance happened on April 2, 2005, after MSU's defeat to North Carolina in the 2005 men's basketball Final Four.[citation needed] Officially deemed a "civil disturbance" rather than a riot, the incident sparked a debate over police brutality in East Lansing, which has yet to be resolved. Despite the damage to MSU's image, the University looks to improve its academic reputation in the 21st century.

No UC article has ever achieved featured status on wikipedia. With UCR, the task should be easy, as there is less history to work with and the size of the campus in all its dimensions would make it easier to write a comprehensive article. If we refocus the collective energy that goes into these talk pages to the article, the UCR article could easily become the shining jewel of the UC articles before the end of summer.

Towards that goal, I'll be focusing next week on contextualizing the information contained in "Student life" on diversity-related issues, and on anything else i happen to find good references for.--Amerique 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Bold text