Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 4

message: Racism in the Inlande Empire isn't relevant in an article about UCR. The Inland Empire is massive, with millions of people. The placement of the article is clearly an attempt to reflect poorly on the school by association. The point is that UCR is most diverse campus in the UC system, racism clearly is not a problem. TheRegicider 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with TheRegicider on this point, although I would assume good faith re: the claim that the edit is "an attempt to reflect poorly on the school by association". Discussion of racism would be relevant if someone provided evidence that there are significantly more hate or bias motivated incidents at UCR than at other UC schools, or other schools in California. TheRegicider said in the edit summary that we don't discuss Richmond gangs in the Berkeley article. As another example, I'm from Ventura County, CA, where we've had a problem with Nazi skinhead gangs for a while. Do we discuss this in University of California, Santa Barbara, California State University, Channel Islands, California Lutheran University, etc.? szyslak (t, c, e) 21:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: I've attempted to make a compromise, mentioning the problem without going overboard explaining it (the reader can always click the reference link to get more info). What does everyone think? –Tifego(t) 10:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A compromise 

message: Yo, this article is whack, we gotta mention the hate, man, the hate against the minorities - did u guys read that link?  It's bad, yo. I know the 909. 909er 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: note: The above two posts (by 909er and HisBundleAblation) were most likely made by UCRGrad. –Tifego(t) 16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now for something completely different 

message: The reference numbers at the bottom don't seem to line up with the numbers in the article. For instance, I click on the little [16] and it scrolls down to entry #14 in the refs. This is a bit confusing and it makes it difficult to determine which reference something is referring to without comparing the  and  tag contents. –Tifego(t) 17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference numbers? 

message: The message we are trying to convey is: "UCR ranks #4 nationwide for campus diversity." Period. This alone is not a biased sentence, neither positive or negative.  Your interpretation of it as a positively biased sentence occurs in the context you put it in – the surrounding cities and the racial problems that occur – but your support for the correlation between UCR and the communities responsible for these hate crimes is very much lacking (see below).  I don't accept the statement above as biased and I contend that it be left as simple.  By adding that the surrounding community is less diverse and that hate crimes are of significance to note, you are required to mention that: ... however, hate crimes are nearly non-existent at UCR (add citation).  It is here that we’ve returned to a balanced viewpoint, and remained ON-TOPIC; and it is also here where it is apparent that a discussion on "hate crime" does nothing for the wiki entry!
So... for this statement to remain the burden is on you to:
1. Prove (with census data) that hate crimes are reported every two to three days and that this distinctly sets apart the Riverside community from any other community across the U.S.  (In other words – is the national average for hate crime in similar sized cities significantly lower?).  If the IE is up X% and California is down Y%, this doesn't imply significance in the number of hate crimes occuring - there's no comparison between equally populated cities.  However, my real contention is in how you draw correlations between UCR and its community:
2. Prove that these hate crimes are committed in Riverside (or better yet, the surrounding areas of UCR).  Stating that UCR is not an isolated entity with regard to the hate crimes of the Inland Empire is naïve and incorrect.  You are correct in saying that the community interacts with the university, but have failed to link the hate crimes of distant cities OR Riverside itself with the crime or even the socioeconomic status of the students attending - which is the focus of the article.
I’ve already "fixed" it once and it was changed back to the inadequate form.  If you (UCRGrad) understand what I’m explaining to you I would like you to revert it back yourself.  Listen to the advice people are giving you - I was astounded when I first started reading this entry on how much "negative vibe," non-relevant information is included.  In other words, it is obvious to me and others that you want wikipedia's vieweres to see UCR through your tainted viewpoint (it's so bad, I read about your apparent bias off a message board unrelated to Wikipedia before even reading the entry for myself). Pimpclinton 10:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear UCRGrad 

message: 1) If you have to take figures derived from three heterogenous sources, then so some division, and you obtain new (previously unpublished numbers), that is ORIGINAL RESEARCH, no matter how simple it sounds.  
2) Secondly, Pimpclinton also tried to draw a statistical conclusion, by saying that there was "no statistically significant" difference.  He did not tell us what statistical test he used, what the p-value was, and how powered the study was.  In reality, you cannot make the determination that he did with the data available - it's impossible and there is no applicable statistic test you can do.  So he basically tried to pull a fast one on us, and THAT IS EXACTLY WHY ORIGINAL RESEARCH IS NOT ALLOWED HERE.  (If you are at all familiar with stats/research, his blunder is immediately obvious.)
3) His calculation was faulty because it uses hetereogenous data.  Who knows which particular hate crimes were included/not included in that 148 figure.  Was it just racial crime?  Was this over the same range of years as the FBI data?  Lots of questions.  Pimpclinton's numbers are invalid because they are not based on comparable data!!! Again, which is why we don't allow original research here.
4) I agree that UCR has both positive and negative aspects, and that there needs to be contributions from many people.  I happen to have extensive knowledge about UC Riverside, and when I originally started editing this article, I noticed that there were many facts that were just flat about incorrect, or based on hearsay (an not actually true, nor verifiable).  The quality of this article has improved through my efforts and the efforts of others because it is now well-referenced and comprehensive.  
5) It is obvious that there are some people who find the article biased.  Many of these people do not understand the difference between presenting true, verifiable, negative facts, and BIAS.  They're not the same thing.  I have attempted to accurately present the facts about UCR, both good and bad, without introducing bias.
6) Other people who find the article biased are UCR students/alumni/etc.  There have been quite a few reverts and complaints from known UCR students and IP addresses coming from the UCR campus.  Clearly, the opinions of these individuals are inherently biased in the other direction, which explains some of the complaints as well.
7) To Tifego, I think you've been mostly reasonable so far.  But instead of complaining about bias, this and that, blah blah, why don't you suggest changes to wording?  Why don't you justify them?  If you don't agree with what I say, then explain why.  If I address your points, feel free to respond.  For instance, instead of just saying that I misrepresented the racial hate reference, explain HOW and WHY.  There's no need to whine and make retarded accusations.  
8) Finally, I am not the only individual who presents negative facts about UC Riverside.  There are many others, and they come and go. 
9) Not everyone who reads this article flails their arms and cries "bias, bias, bias."  It's typically only a few individuals, and most (but not all) of them have personal biases of their own in the other direction -- i.e. they live in Riverside, they went to UCR, etc.  UCRGrad 23:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1-3) Let me make something clear- this calculation (which I will find homogenous data for) is not going into the main article.  I'm not the one actively making claims on the main page that Riverside has elevated hate crime levels - you are and you have no verifiable data for this.  The only source you provide, although verifiable, makes a blanketing claim about the IE and it is you that HAS TO INFER AND INTERPRET this as applicable to the UCR community.  In an entry about UCR we must only consider the area students most interact with - IE data simply does not meet this standard.  So that is that, it is up to both of us to provide hate crime data for the area. [by Pimpclinton]
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that UC Riverside students are exposed to elements of the Riverside and Inland Empire community.  It is almost always relevant to discuss aspects of the surrounding community, since rarely is data on "what students interact with only" is available.  To do that kind of study, you'd have to follow students around or stick GPS transponders in their backpacks.  Nobody's gonna do that study.  If you have a verifiable source that has more rigorous data, PLEASE ADD IT!!!  We're reporting with the best data available at the moment, and it's relevant." UCRGrad 22:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 4-5) Well-referenced is great, retaining the positive and negative aspects of UCR that most people agree to and perceive is excellent, I am not opposed to presenting negative facts.  What disturbs me is the NEED for "balance" when the original statement isn't biased!  Arguing that UCR's diversity must be countered with something negative about UCR (which you have CLEARLY stated) is LUDICROUS!  
To repeat, and to repeat again: By boasting how ethnically diverse UCR is while failing to mention the high rate of racial violence that occurs in the surrounding area is 100% misleading and constitutes positive bias.  I NEVER said that we must "counter with someting negative," I said that we MUST INCLUDE information about the hate crime in surrounding areas in order to provide accurate and representative information. UCRGrad 22:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 6,9) LOGICALLY INVALID.  Whether or not the arguer lives in Riverside or is a current or former student at UCR does not constitute him or her disposed or "inherently biased" to support removing a negative aspect about UCR.  Refrain from statements that are Ad hominem circumstantial as I have been careful not to fall into the trap of using Appeal to Majority statements to support my reasoning (a side note: again, I emphasize yielding to the majority since articles like these require many points of view for accuracy - I do not and will not state that the majority is always correct, nor do I state that residents and students always act in good faith when editing this entry). Pimpclinton 02:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCRGrad's Response 

message: Hey guys, I'm very new to Wikipedia (as a Wikipedian, anyways) and after using Wikipedia for years I decided I might as well make an account and pitch in.  For this article I'd like to add a citation for the "smog belt", but I wanted to check before making any changes to this controversial topic.  Is a local news rag like that an OK source for something like this?  
--ShadowGuy 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a citation would likely be okay, but only if the sentence is changed to state purely the facts that are justified by that citation. In other words, "The Riverside area is referred to as..." should become something more like "Local news sources have referred to the Riverside area as..." or possibly "The Riverside area has been called...". –Tifego(t) 04:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, would like to see a source for the smog belt reference. Calwatch 08:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, feel free (ShadowGuy) to go ahead and add it. Don't worry too much about making a mistake, it's easily fixed if that happens. –Tifego(t) 16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. –Tifego(t) 08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding citations 

message: I go away for a day and this is the crap that ensues.  I'm going to repeat what I've said previously.  The NEJM study was conducted SPECIFICALLY in various southern CA communities.  Riverside was one of them.  Therefore, the results are MOST GENERALIZABLE to the areas and the populations that were in the actual study.  Again, Riverside was one of them.  We can say with a great deal of certainty that the air IN RIVERSIDE damages lungs in children.  It is immaterial whether other communities were covered or what the primary objectives of the authors were.  For someone who claims to have a background in research, you seem to know every little about statistical analysis and reporting of scientific evidence -- I'd be willing to be that your role in the lab is a minor one at best.  Now to address one of your only reasonable counterarguments, anyone with basic knowledge of interpreting scientific publications could tell you that you could NOT necessarily generalize the results of the study to "children in the UK," as you suggest.  The study population was various SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA communities, not the UK.  In order to generalize to the UK, you would have to establish a) an analogous level and composition of smog, and b) a similar child population with similar health care, etc.  I shouldn't have to explain this basic information to someone who claims to be a researcher.  Care to bone up to your blunder about your false claim of statistical significance yet? 
I have already said this a thousand times and Pimpclinton NEVER addresses it: Pertinent facts about the environment/city surrounding a university ARE RELEVANT to an encyclopedia article.  This includes weather/pollution/whatever.  Respected publications such as the Princeton Review, US News, and even college brochures all discuss aspects of the area surrouding a school.  
UCRGrad 02:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but is the smog mentioned in these publications? And what, then, about other areas with bad air? Do these publications mention the same thing about Rice University (in polluted Houston)? The soot from the steel plants near Carnegie Mellon? I think that a couple of sentences is warranted, but a full paragraph is a bit much. Calwatch 03:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCRGrad's comments on the smog 

message: Could everyone (who is not already doing so) please:
*Calm down - Try reading WP:CIVIL, or leave this alone for a while.
*Be brief - Is there really so much to say about this? Every time I check back after a day or so this talk page has grown huge, accompanied by an apparent lack of progress in coming to an agreement.
UCRGrad: Have you decided whether to accept or decline mediation?
Pimpclinton: I think you might be misunderstanding what "mediation" means. It doesn't "arrive" and judge people; it's a cooperative process. Compare WP:M, WP:RFC, and WP:RFAR.
–Tifego(t) 05:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept mediation and am fairly certain what it is but let me clear it up with you - a mediator is a third party whose goal is to facilitate listening and understanding of the other side's points.  That's exactly what I need right now - (when I get requests from UCRGrad on clarity on the issue, quick replies that don't even show an understanding of the conversation or something I have stated, friends reading my replies saying I'm one of the most articulate debaters they've encountered - I kinda know why I'm not getting through to the opposing side).  I'll wait for mediation before going any further in this discussion.  Please email me when one has arrived as I probably won't be checking this board that frequently until Thursday 4/27. Pimpclinton 05:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think only mediation, or some kind of third party intervention, could save this article right now. I also disagree with UCRGrad on his views on mentioning both racism and the smog in the UCR article. Is smog mentioned for Rice? Baylor College of Medicine? Any of the NYC universities? Is gang warfare mentioned in USC? The inland empire might have some incidences of hate crimes, but are there any that occur on the UCR campus at all? Why is there such a NPOV in the Student Life section? Dandanxu 20:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: (I'm not quite sure where I'm supposed to mention this... but I also changed the pronounciation of Thomas Haider. Carol Moffett (pre-med advisor at UCR, so an expert on the Thomas Haider program I presume), told me it is pronounced hi-der and not hay-ter as the article says. It's really just pronounced exactly like it looks like. I don't know where people got this "hater" business from. I've only heard of it being pronounced hi-der and I've known enough people in the actual program. Dandanxu 19:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits & Suggestions, grouped together