Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 5

message: Concerning the statement; "In 2005, the Princeton Review ranked UC Riverside among the bottom twenty universities for "Professors Get Low Marks [for Teaching]," "Professors Make Themselves Scarce," and "Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses". "
I just wanted to mention that the Princeton Review also ranks UCLA among the bottom twenty universities for those exact three categories (see http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/rankings.asp?listing=1023373<id=1&intbucketid=). These rankings are not listed on the UCLA wiki article. My question is, why are they listed on UC Riverside's?
Dandan 03:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The funny thing is that Princeton Review also lists UCR as one amongst the "Best Western Colleges" and "America's Best Value College" lists.  If a point has to be made about three negative lists, wouldn't it make sense to make the same point about two positive lists from SAME PAGE of the the SAME SOURCE?  Yet, that past edit was reverted for no good reason whatsoever.  Go figure, right? --DtEW 07:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what I figured, DtEW, so I have changed the article to list the points from the positive lists too. Hopefully nobody will revert to the old version, especially since there's simply no logical reason to do so. Dandan 09:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I argue that it's not appropiate to include such statistics at all. If you look at other schools that also listed on these lists, none of their wiki articles (even those schools with very comprehensive wikipedia articles, such as UCLA), these statistics or, as I would call them, very informal rankings, are not mentioned. Why should they be mentioned on the UCR wikipedia? Dandan 17:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princeton Review lists & rankings 

message: Perusing through the Princeton Review lists (registration is required, BTW), one thing struck me: The lists are selected among the best 361 colleges as ranked by Princeton, not among a representative sample of all universities in the US. So it's not telling the whole story if we state that UCR is among the worst in the nation for teaching quality and professor availability. Though it may be appropriate to include such statistics, they should be placed in their proper context. szyslak (t, c, e) 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I argue that it's not appropiate to include such statistics at all. If you look at other schools that also listed on these lists, none of their wiki articles (even those schools with very comprehensive wikipedia articles, such as UCLA), these statistics or, as I would call them, very informal rankings, are not mentioned. Why should they be mentioned on the UCR wikipedia? Dandan 17:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One important point... 

message: Dear Pimpclinton,
It's nice to be back from vacation. I am much less stressed than I was previously, so I think that I'm in a much more tranquil mood.
I would like to thank you for clarifying your arguments; I very much appreciate that.
I support the inclusion of the statement, that is, “Riverside air can damage children’s lungs,” in the UC Riverside article.
Pimpclinton Point 1: The majority of UC Riverside students are not “children” nor do they have children.”
I will now state my counterpoint, which is completely independent of any other counter-points raised thus far.
Counterpoint 5: A reasonable number of UCR students grew up in the geographical regions that were studied in NEJM paper and conseqeuently the results of the study are applicable to this sub-population of students. Therefore, because of this fact, the statement in question should be included in the UC Riverside Wikipedia article.
UnblockingTau 01:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UnblockingTau's Response to Pimpclinton 

message: I've been busy so I haven't had time to make all the changes, but I'd like to thank everyone that has. The article has made a ton of progress. With the changes that Hearty and Dandanxu recently made, it seems like it is but a hair away from a Neutral Point of View. Surely the article must include negative information about the school, but previously the article purposely excluded positive info. Keep up the good work, and that tag should be down soon. 138.23.21.216 23:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you even mention it? –Tifego(t) 02:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: When making extremely major changes, it's courteous to leave a note on talk. But what UCRGrad Insert-Belltower seems to be suggesting is that any somewhat major edit is "invalid" if it's not pre-approved on talk by the article's frequent editors. No user is obligated to "justify" all their edits. See WP:BOLD. szyslak (t, c, e) 03:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologize. I was actually referring to what Insert-Belltower said above, and I mistakenly substituted "UCRGrad" for "Insert-Belltower". szyslak (t, c, e) 04:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, just because someone edited the article on the UCR campus does not make them ineligible from contributing. Their contributions must be scrutinized like everyone else's.Calwatch 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to UCRGrad's comment, I have left notes in the TALK section whenever I made changes. Dandan 17:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All the new changes 

message: To this sentence: this same book listed UCR among the bottom twenty universities in its top 361 universities for "Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses"[9], "Professors Get Low Marks [for Teaching]"[10], and "Professors Make Themselves Scarce"[11].
Someone added: "In the latter two categories, University of California, Los Angeles ranks lower."
To this sentence: Additionally, only 5% of UCR alumni donate back to their alma mater, which corresponds to the lowest alumni giving rate of any university in the nation.
Someone added: "The rates at UCLA and UC Davis are at 16% and 10% respectively
This can get ridiculous.  For every fact about UCR, we can list the percentage/value for each and every other UC.  You can see how this can be cumbersome.  However, if nobody seems to object to adding "other campus" info here and there, my line: " Compared to other UC schools, UCR has the lowest peer assessment score, the lowest selectivity rank, and the lowest ranking overall - that is, UCR ranks lower than UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, and UC Santa Cruz" should NOT be a problem out of consistency. UCRGrad 03:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the alumni giving claim deserves some investigation. Are we sure it's the lowest in the nation, or just the lowest among Princeton/US News' top so-and-so-many colleges? There's a huge, HUGE difference. I find it hard to believe UCR has THE lowest giving rate in these United States, lower than any jerkwater Internet diploma mill. szyslak (t, c, e) 04:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to listing mitigating data about other UC campuses specifically 

message: 909er, who some people think is the same person as UCRGrad, reverted my edits, calling them "obnoxious" and demanding an explanation on talk. Here goes:
# The medical library thing has been discussed ad nauseam. It doesn't matter that UCR doesn't have a "dedicated medical library". That would be a problem if it had a medical school. 
# I also made the tone of the section more neutral, softening the "UCR sucks" argumentation throughout. My edits were aimed at improving this article.
# I was being bold. Is that such a crime? There was no need to "justify" my gentle NPOV work. But I did anyway.
szyslak (t, c, e) 05:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the fact that UCR is the lowest of the UC system is definitely notable. The spin of "lower" is just that, spin, when UCR is the lowest. That in and of itself is an accomplishment: the lowest UC still probably kicks the vast majority of other four year state colleges and universities in the country. The lack of Nobel laureates in an otherwise star-studded UC system is similarly noteworthy. However, naming all of the UC campuses when one can click on the University of California article is a bit absurd. Calwatch 05:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I agree that UCR's status in relation to other UCs is notable. However, my word choice ("lower" instead of "lowest") was not "spin" or POV pushing. It was simply a stylistic choice. What I don't like is how the reverted version repeats the word "lowest" several times. I think one "lowest" (or "lower") is enough. And I definitely agree it's ridiculous to name all the other UCs one by one. It sounds like it's saying "Look at all these schools that are better than UCR". szyslak (t, c, e) 05:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Szyslak's recent edits 

message: UCRGrad and several of his, um, supporters, argue that the article should mention that UCR lacks a dedicated medical library. It is beyond unnecessary to make such a statement. Yes, it's a true fact that there's no medical library at UCR. That's probably because it's, um, financially imprudent to pour tens/hundreds of millions of dollars into a brand-new library building to serve just 48 students. It's a false issue, one of many on this page. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well technically they're UCLA students, since they get their medical degree from UCLA and not UCR. UCLA has a medical school, and the medical students have online access to them. And honestly, if you've done any kind of biomedical research in the past decade, you should know that nobody actually goes into a library to look up papers because they're all available online. In summary, UCR does not have, repeat, DOES NOT HAVE, a medical school. UCR is not licensed to give a medical degree. So there isn't a medical library, because its really kind of dumb to have one. So why the hell mention it? Dandan 17:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, papers prior to about a decade ago were not published online. first of all, how many times will a medical student ever need a paper published before that time? second of all, UCR/UCLA medical students at the UCR campus have access to the UCLA library. In fact, all UC students do via something called MELVYL. If one of the mere 48 students were ever need a paper that's not at the UCR science library hardcopy collection AND not available online (a highly unlikely scenario in the first place), they can place an order online on the library website, the article will be found by librarians at the UCLA library, and then either scanned in and emailed, or a hardcopy sent to the student's address. basically, you'll get the paper by the next business day if you're OK with a scanned copy. I know of several graduate students that have used this system very successively. So why on earth does UCR need to build a DEDICATED medical library for its 48 medical students that aren't even considered UCR students? Do we need to build a medical library for the students to study in or something? The biomed program has their lounge that students utilize, the state-of-the-art science library should be more than sufficient for their needs, and there's also something called your own desk and chair at home. Bemoaning the lack of a medical library in a school without a medical school is ridiculous. So AGAIN, I am deleting the phrase, like so many of my fellow wikipedeans have tried to do so before me. Dandan 19:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be neutral if it were relevant, but it doesn't appear to be relevant enough (per Dandan's argument (which was not that old papers are never needed)) to be neutral in the absense of other equally-irrelevant things (which MELVYL probably qualifies as, but why mention either if they don't amount to anything that affects UCR students?). –Tifego(t) 21:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, like Tifego said, if the lack of a dedicated medical library and the prescense of the MELVYL system are both irrelevant, then why mention either? THe interchange of materials between UC libraries isn't limited to UCR/UCLA medical students. For example, I could waltz in and order something from, say, UC Berkeley. Any library users of any of the UC libraries can freely obtain any of the other UC libraries' materials. It's not necessarily something you mention in the UCR wiki (perhaps in the University of California system wiki). The lack of a dedicated medical library is even less relevant than the prescense of MELVYL. IMO, just deleting the phrase is good enough.  Dandan 05:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: UCRGrad, please stop doing that. I'm referring mostly to your #8 above. It's completely unnecessary to tell others how unqualified they are, and you had already laid out your argument. –Tifego(t) 09:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you decided to start editing that article, I am guessing you would believe you had some reason to do it. If it turns out you were wrong, you should be capable of getting the hint from the arguments made against your points. What is more convincing to you: being told why your points are wrong, or being told that you don't know anything? You hadn't even said a single thing yet to Dandan in this conversation, and didn't even wait for the response to your points before saying that, so it's not as if you tried and failed repeatedly to show why her points were wrong, and even if you had, the correct avenue would be Wikipedia dispute resolution. –Tifego(t) 15:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical library 

message: The 5% is what needs to be put in context. A random reader without previous knowledge of giving rates would have not be able to appropriately digest the number without seeing similar one's for other schools. 5% seems strangely low until you realize that UCLA--perhaps the greatest public university in the state--is only 10 points higher. In other words, the statistics themselves must be posted to provide context. There is no explaination for "2-3X higher" other than to slant the data. Unless you're attempting to pull a fast one, you would have no objection to the verbatim posting of statistical data. The users can do the math themselves if they'd like. 138.23.21.216 06:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to whoever responds to this: don't latch onto the last sentence without properly addressing the previous ones. –Tifego(t) 08:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: note: NPOV means "Neutral point of view". The  tag means the "NPOV'ness" of the article is disputed. –Tifego(t) 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no need to take a hostile tone. I would like to propose a compromise sentence: "UCR alumni donate back to their alma mater at a rate that is lowest of any comprehensive university in the nation." 
No percentages are mentioned here, so we will have no problems with the 5% issue.
Insert-Belltower 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni 

message: The hate crime information about the Inland Empire is irrelevant. Firstly, it assumes that hate crimes occurred on an equally distributed basis (the article notes ONLY that 148 hate crimes occurred in the Inland Empire, which doesn't say when they occurred). Please also note the fact that the Riverside County Sheriff's Department  can't verify all these hate crimes. In fact, actual statistics from a primary source, trumping all other sources according to WP:RS, show 114 hate crime offenses in 2004 in all of Riverside County, with only 24 occurring within the City of Riverside.  While 24 incidences is higher than average, it is not that high. LA County had 624 incidences compared to Riverside County's 114, yet LA County has five times the population of Riverside County. You don't see articles saying that LA County is a center of hate (primarily because most of the hating is black on Latino or Latino on black which gets less coverage). 
By the way, that report lists UC Riverside as having NO hate crimes. Since the footnotes say that only agencies reporting a hate crime are included, and previous versions of the data have included UC Riverside with hate crimes, this means that there were no hate crimes in 2004, the year of last publication (and two hate offenses in 2003). This corresponds with UCR's Clery Act disclosure here, which shows that UCR had no hate offenses in 2004. The UCPD reference may include "offenses" that have a broader scope than an actual incident as defined by the federal Clery Act and the state Attorney General. Thus, I am going to delete the additional information, because of its irrelevance, and its contradiction to a verified source, the California Attorney General. Calwatch 08:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For clarification, the five instances in the UCPD report were incidences of bias that were not Clery-reportable offenses. This could be as simple as name calling or vandalism, not hate motivated offenses against another person. Calwatch 08:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, please see this link from a UCR server. I don't know where Berkeley got their information from. But the federally required Clery Act disclosure clearly shows that UCR had NO legally definable hate crimes, not just "incidents", during the period. Therefore, I am going to revert. Calwatch 16:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I do, it is NPOV and an article from Alternet, a left-leaning web-only news service, is not a reliable source per WP:RS. If you disagree, I invite you to bring this matter up in arbitration or mediation. Calwatch 01:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: note: NPOV means "Neutral point of view". The  tag means the "NPOV'ness" of the article is disputed. I believe you meant "POV" or "biased", not "NPOV". –Tifego(t) 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The comment "Eat It" violates WP:CIVIL. And your changes will continue to be reverted. Calwatch 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate crimes, redux 

message: There are too many accusations going around without any evidence. For now on if I am accused of being a sock puppet of Joe Blow or anyone else, I will report it as a personal attack.
Thank you and have a nice day,
Insert-Belltower 20:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I don't think you could be UCRGrad. (Unless you're incredibly good at maintaining split personalities, which could be said about anyone). –Tifego(t) 20:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock puppet Accusations 

message: The StudentsReview.com stat needs to go for multiple reasons.
# The citeneeded tag has been up for days, if no one is going to bother citing it, it has to go
# The sample size is 40 students. It's self-reported data as well, and thusly not accurate enough for Wikistandards. You can't cite a messageboard, you can't cite a forum like this. Putting this up is like quoting ApartmentRatings.com. 
# The graph on the FRONT PAGE CONTRADICTS THE STATISTIC. It's clear that over 50% of the students said they could return to the school, whereas the stat listed here, rounds down...significantly. 
# Other statistics listed on the site show a pattern of inaccuracy. They claim that UCR has an average ACT of 14. Clearly, that is not true and is contradicted by UCR admission statistics. I don't even think you can get into a UC school with a score that low. Additionally, the site still has an Application deadline of 2004. It's 2 years outdated.
# Even if it were acceptable to use information from the site, the authors who have done so, did it selectively. The majority of the school's ratings are in the B range--none of which has been mentioned in the article. If it is so imperative that we mention hate crimes near campus, we must pursue this angle with equal vigor.
Until someone can address these obvious problems, the statistic stays out. It's clearly a violation of Wiki Rules, ethics, and common sense. 138.23.21.216 22:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using your first reason as a rationale, you could delete any statement you wanted just by appending a citeneeded tag to it and leaving it there for several days. SoCalAlum 22:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying that citeneeded doesn't require some sort of response, but you seem to be imposing an arbitrary cutoff date on the statement in question.  Why aren't you, for example, taking issue with the citeneeded tags in the History section of the article? SoCalAlum 22:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  StudentsReview.com 

message: I don't understand why you would want to remove the mentioning of an incident that affects a community in a university town. I don't think if matters if UCR students were involved since the article is already talking about hate crimes in general. The community needs to be aware of the horrible acts against certain people that are "different."
Jokersmoker 18:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and in that same link, UCRGrad (whom was banned from that forums for probably the same things he's doing here in wikipedia) was a naysayer for UCR. so what's your point. Dandan 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violence against gays