Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 13

message: The very title of this section seems quite biased.  In looking at pages on other UC schools, there seems to be no reporting in regards to the surrounding areas.  The UC population tends to have a much lower crime rate as a whole than most areas surrounding those UCs.
Also, this article does not reflect points of view that speak to the acceptance of minority groups at UC Riverside, such at the LGBT community.  UCR was featured in “The Advocate College Guide for LGBT Students” as one of 100 schools profiled for acceptance of the LGBT community.
I realize I'm pretty new here, but I was hoping this could also be dicussed.
FrostedTheFlake 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. starkt 10:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have information regarding LGBT community acceptance from a reputable, verifiable source, please include it in the article.  With regard to your feeling of "bias," there is none.  Please do not confuse conveyance of negative information with "bias," because they are not the same entity.  The article does not convey statistics on crime in general, as you say, but on hate crime, specifically - of which the school and the surrounding area have serious problems with. UCRGrad 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pssst. "...of which the school and the surrounding area have serious problems with" is grammatically incorrect. starkt 10:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And I would just ignore this Danny guy, he probably hasn't checked his GFR today.Insert-Belltower 14:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity and Hate Crimes 

message: I've done a lot of edits, mostly for style, grammar, spelling, tense agreements, clarity, singular-plural agreements, brevity, conventional usage and so on. 
I will not accept wholesale reverts of these edits. If you revert, I will revert in turn. 
As a courtesy, you should edit, not revert, unless what you are reverting is obvious vandalism. 
I will no longer accept blatant POV in this article. 
Nor, as an alumnus of UC, will I tolerate sub-literate writing and editing. starkt 14:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been warned. I will revert any reverts you or others make. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The evidence is overwhelming. What you "accept" is of no interest to me. It is what Wikipedia accepts that matters. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is hardly nitpicking to make editorial changes to an article that appears mostly to have been written by someone who has read very little, and who writes sloppily and ungrammatically as a matter of course. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the vast majority of the grammar errors you corrected were not originally made by me.  Furthermore, the majority of text was submitted by Amerique, not me.  Finally, thus far, I have not been very impressed by the caliber of your writing - so don't pat yourself on the back just yet. UCRGrad 02:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My writing and thinking are self-evidently superior to yours. Like so many ignorant people, you cannot recognize quality because you live in a self-created world of error. Thus, what you are impressed or not impressed by is of no interest to anyone. Oh, and the correct usage is not "grammar errors" by "grammatical errors". Just thought you'd like to know. starkt 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I can, and I have. Quite often. Literate people of good will have accepted my editorial changes -- often sweeping -- without objection. They understand that Wiki's policy is that ANYONE can write and make edits, not just Insert-Belltower and UCRGrad. You don't "own" this article. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have, with no problems. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What do they do then -- study a clerkship? learn a clerkship? I'd be interested to know. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, if you don't know how to use a word in a sentence, then maybe you shouldn't try.  It's called "overextending your knowledge base."  UCRGrad 02:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice you don't answer my question, so I'm going to change it back. It seems you've overextended your "knowledge base", so you're hardly in a position to criticize others on this point. Continue down this road, and I'll revert back to my original set of changes. starkt 09:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not according to the article. I was merely restating what was already stated. Look at what was written before. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And then I'll revert back. That goes without saying as well. But you will notice that I have carefully preserved most of your and Insert-Belltower's bias. I am not interested at this point in removing all the POV from the article. starkt 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well let us know when you plan to introduce your positive POV in the article in order to create a lofty image of the school.Insert-Belltower 16:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I do that, it will be no worse than your transparent attempts to introduce POV by slamming the school. starkt 09:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter your personal feelings, please be advised that you are still required to follow WP:AGF and WP:NPA.  Thanks. UCRGrad 12:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise you to follow those rules before advising others to follow them. starkt 08:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether or not you believe I am following WP rules and policy, you are obliged to follow them regardless. UCRGrad 15:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing vs. Reverting

message: In and of themselves, adding a "positive" fact is not sugar-coating, and adding a negative fact isn't always bad-mouthing UCR. Let's not lose sight of what's important in the long run: ensuring this article is neutral, verifiable and free of original research. szyslak (t, c, e) 12:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ... is a [[false dichotomy]]

message: I removed that image because it is an old construction photo of the commons.  A new one (which I took last time I visited the campus), correctly shows the latest status.  And does not need an enlarged version of the same site.
:The photo you uploaded shows a DIFFERENT part of campus.  Hence, your photo does not supercede mine. THanks. UCRGrad 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with College Watch. His newer image clearly shows much progress since the time UCRGrad's picture was taken, and in addition, it is simply a much higher quality picture. The old photo appeared as if it was taken from a camera phone, and a poor one at that. Furthermore, the photography was so substandard that it was practially impossible to tell which part of the campus that was. College Watch's photo is much better and belongs in the article. That is, unless some users want to force the impression that UCR is nothing more than a pile of dirt, which incidentally wouldn't surprise me. --WHSTalk 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with College Watch. starkt 05:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The resolution of the photo was > 1MP, which is way more than adequate for a thumbnail image on a webpage.  Furthermore, the photos depict two different areas of campus, so they are not mutually exclusive.  Thanks. UCRGrad 00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant (and outdated) image is to be removed 

message: If reader chooses to read the section on Air Pollution, they will be well aware of the severity.  Air Pollution by itself as a title is more neutral and more appropriate.
:"Severe" is a term that accurately describes the air pollution in Riverside, the WORST in the nation. UCRGrad 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's leave it up to the reader to decide how bad the air pollution in Riverside is, and how relevant this issue is to the quality of life in the area, instead of having the article lecture to them. szyslak (t, c, e) 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Szyslak on this. starkt 09:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with replacing "severe" with a more accurate description of the smog in Riverside. UCRGrad 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Severe" in article shows bias; needs to be removed 

message: This message is directed at Teknosoul02 and UCRGrad: Either put your differences to an end or take your fight somewhere else. I suggest personal e-mail, so we don't have to listen to you two insult each other. This talk page is not for personal squabbles. It is for discussing the Wikipedia article University of California, Riverside.
Neither of you two are blameless. Teknosoul, it's not cool to scream profanities at another editor, no matter what horrible things you think they've done. UCRG, it's not cool to insult another person's alma mater, no matter what horrible things you think they've done. Cut it out. szyslak (t, c, e) 01:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Szyslak, if you saw the remarks UCRGrad made about my alma mater, you would understand why I was upset.  No, I cannot justify the profanity I used towards UCRGrad and I admit that regardless of the circumstances (even if say UCRGrad insulted my family for example), I was not justified in yelling obscenities to him.  However, I hope you at least understand my position that I take pride in my alma mater and I do take it very personally if someone insults it (even if the person claims he is just stating a fact, which in UCRGrad's case, is utterly preposterous).  Thanks for your understanding.  Teknosoul02 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Szyslak, I'm unsure that you are able to differentiate between an "insult" and a "fact."  The purpose of my statement was never to insult Teknosoul02, but just to provide a counterargument to his parallel example that Rutgers is a decent university yet has a similar peer assessment score to UCR's.  I pointed out that in California, people do not know much about Rutgers in terms of reputation - and this is true.  Teknosoul02, for some reason, couldn't handle this fact, and started spewing obscenities.  However, a fact is a fact...unless you are using a definition of "insult" that I'm not aware of. UCRGrad 12:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As ElKevbo and I have said, neither side is blameless. szyslak (t, c, e) 12:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: UCRGrad, your purpose WAS to insult Rutgers.  That's unbelievable that your masking your OPINION as fact.  Teknosoul02 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so now it's my opinon that UCR and Rutgers have every similar peer assessment scores in US News, even though you could easily verify this opinion as FACT by looking it up?  And therefore, my purpose was to insult rather than point out a flaw in your argument?  I DON'T THINK SO. UCRGrad 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough! 

message: While I appreciate your enthusiasm with the article, you are still bound to the rules of Wikipedia.  May I suggest you read them before making up your own.  For instance, an appropriately cited article from US News and World Report is a more than acceptable source on WP.  The fact that you have to pay to access it online is irrelevant. [UCRGrad]
:No, it isn't. Wikipedia has no stated policy that I can see on "pay per view" sources. I've submitted the question to the Village Pump/policy area. In the meantime, I will hold off on deleting claims "supported" by such sources. starkt 05:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not just give the name of the publication that is your source and leave it at that? If you're going to use external links to your sources, they should link to something other than "Subscribe now and you'll get blah, blah, blah..." starkt 05:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is that so? Well, then you won't mind if I remove all that unsourced material about UCR being a coeducational school, being crossed over by Highway 60, etc.. Right? starkt 05:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I provided two references. And you removed the Master Plan information after I provided them. Your criticisms of the sources are invalid. This is an example of your bad faith. No one has any reason to assume that you are acting in good faith. You are not, and as far as I can tell, you never have been. starkt 06:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've looked at your sources. They do not appear to say what you claim they say. Too bad for you. Furthermore, the claim in the article was that "50-60%" needed remedial instruction in English, not "50%". And the only mention I saw of UCR in relation to remedial English was from material that was gathered in 1999. So the claim was not supported and I removed it. It seems that you are the one who needs to examine things more closely. starkt 05:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided TWO sources, one said 50%, the other 60%.  Therefore, it "50-60%" is accurate.  If you wanted to change it to read "50%" because that's what the newer source says, that would be fine.  However, you are NOT justified in DELETING the entire paragraph, just because the article says "50-60%" and there are two references attached that support this.  There's a huge difference and you know it. UCRGrad 00:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first source said nothing about English remediation. Your second source said 50% needed English remediation -- in 1999. So you are wrong. You provided no material in support of 60%, and the material you provided in support of 50% was out of date (from 1999 -- 7 years ago.) starkt 06:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two sources.  The "1999" source clearly demonstrates a 60% remediation rate for English in Figure 5.  The "2006" source clearly states "UCR however, has many more underprepared entering students in mathematics: 70 percent place below calculus, compared to 50% percent that place into ELWR [remedial English] classes."  Now, in light of two hard piece of evidence supporting these statistics, how do you justify your repeated deletions of these sentences? UCRGrad 20:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see anything about remedial English in the 2006 reference. You say something about ELWR. I didn't see that reference, but then I was looking for a reference to "remedial English" or "Subject A". "ELWR" doesn't mean anything to me. How would your reader know what it refers to? And, properly sourced or not, I'm going to take out this material anyway because it is POV and makes a mountain out of a molehill. Most of my UC Berkeley classmates had to take Subject A (remedial English) back in the 1970s. No one would have made a big deal about this back then, and they shouldn't now. Your concentration on this issue is POV, meant to cast a negative light on UCR. So it stays out. starkt 08:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ELWR is the entry level writing requirement.  It's common knowledge to people familiar with the UC system and its requirements.  If you are not familiar with a particular area of the article, you should read about it rather than make deletions first.  ELWR information can easily be found here http://english.ucr.edu/elwr/index.html.  Regardless of how many of your Cal classmates took the subject A in 1970's, in 2006, the remediation rate at Berkeley is a LOT lower (read the reference in the article) and it's a major problem, such that it even caused the Chair of the UCR English department to resign in frustration.  IT's a BIG DEAL, and it is vital to this article.  I agree that it dos cast a negative light on UCR, but that is simply not a reason to remove the information! UCRGrad 15:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember your source correctly, the Chair of the UCR English department didn't resign because entering UCR freshmen needed remedial work. Second, your endless unfavorable comparisons of UCR to other UC campuses are pure POV. It would be like me writing an article about Berkeley and filling it with the following: "Competition for admission to Berkeley is very keen, but not nearly as keen as competition for admission to Harvard and Stanford, which are much more selective schools...Berkeley freshmen arrive well prepared for college-level work, but far less prepared than freshmen at Harvard and Stanford...Berkeley has seven Nobel prize winners on its faculty, not nearly as impressive as the nine Nobel prize winners now teaching at Stanford...UC Berkeley's campus of 1,200 acres is large, but is dwarfed by the huge, 8,800 acre Stanford campus -- which, moreover, consists of far more valuable real estate (mid-Peninsula real estate in this location being valued a $1 million per acre as opposed to the paltry $200,000 per acre value of Berkeley real estate)..." You might object to my comparing Berkeley with Harvard and Stanford, but given that Berkeley is rated consistently as the very best or second-best university overall in the United States and -- for that matter -- in the world, I think it would be no less "fair" to compare Berkeley to Harvard and Stanford than it is "fair" for you to carp on UCR's shortcomings relative to other UC campuses. starkt 07:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well said, Szyslak. I agree, and I go into the remedial education non-issue in further detail down below. starkt 11:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chair of the English department didn't resign because of the remediation rate. Rather, he resigned due to the way the campus' administration was handling the program. In the future, I encourage you to read the source materials again and perhaps be more familiar with the subject you're talking about before such proclaimations are made.  --WHSTalk 15:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone who doesn't know calculus isn't "underprepared", unless their major requires it. Notwithstanding other parts of the passage, UC doesn't have a general calculus requirement. I went to UC Santa Cruz, and they didn't care how much calculus I had (i.e. none). If you think someone doesn't deserve a university degree if they don't know calculus, perhaps you can attend the next UC Board of Regents meeting and propose a calculus requirement. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Szyslak, I think you're misunderstanding what underprepared means.  It refers to being READY for calculus, meaning you're math level is sufficient that you could take calculus if you wanted to, but for many majors, calculus isn't a grad requirements...but being at a level prior to pre-calculus (like algebra or geometry) means you're not prepared.  IT's just the wording that's used to describe what the University considers remedial.  You may have strong opinions about what students should know for college, but unfortunately, the University of California has its own standards that supercede yours.  UCRGrad 15:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UCRGrad, if that is indeed the case that underprepared refers to being "READY for calculus", then again, I'll have to encourage you to re-read your source materials.  it clearly states "70 percent place below calculus", not 70 percent aren't "ready" for calculus. As you can see, not only is there a substantial difference there according to your criteria, but it would also make the information in the article invalid (and also OR) as it is based on your flawed judgement. Again, please read the materials before you decide to make such unfounded claims. "You may have strong opinions about what students should know for college, but unfortunately, the University of California has its own standards that supercede yours." --WHSTalk 15:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I know about higher education standards in California, UC and Cal State schools expect two years of algebra and one year of geometry in high school. Anyone who tests below that level upon entering college needs remedial work. If we must discuss this issue in the article, what's relevant is how many incoming students need this type of remedial work, to make students ready for the "college algebra" classes most students need to graduate. Calculus comes after college algebra. (I tried to find figures on how many incoming UCR students needed true entry-level math preparation, but was unsuccessful.) I read the source given for the calculus claim; it's the minutes for a meeting on high school-level preparation for a UC education. I got the impression the person giving the 70% figure was mainly concerned that not enough students were qualifying for science and engineering majors. The bottom line is, it doesn't matter how many students are prepared for calculus when we're looking at readiness for a college education. We could just as well say 95% of students didn't take Advanced Placement physics, or 99% of them can't speak fluent Latin. szyslak (t, c, e) 16:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Starkt's Changes 

message: Insert-Belltower, again, please do not remove the POV dispute tag. It is clear that the dispute is still on going, and specific issues have been cited earlier on this page under the "POV Tag, Again" section. Also, the rest of your edits were reverted as they constituted POV material being re-introduced after they had been removed. --WHSTalk 04:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: Dear friends: I was in one of the pioneer classes at UCR (class of 1957). I am a professional writer and editor and have taught university-level journalism (writing and copy editing). I would like this article to be better than it is. I put in some time in fixing up the info and correcting the infelicities.  Somebody has been reverting my fixes to their previous sad condition, with apparently not much knowledge about either the English language or the reasoning behind my editing. When that person decides to get a life, I might help you out again. Just let me know.
Sincerely, your friend
GeorgeLouis 00:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to come back in as long as other folks are watching my back. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 03:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to include your edits when I revert back after my edits have been unjustifiably reverted by UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower. starkt 08:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm outa here. 

message: Anyone got the U.S. News 2006 figures for Student diversity at UCR?  Last time I checked the diversity further increased. College Watch 04:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New diversity figures?