Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 3

message: :What students not selected for the Thomas Haider program do isn't exactly relevant. It's like saying "While most UCLA students qualify for great grad schools, some actually end up going to bad ones." The sole purpose of that remark is to make the school look bad. Lastly, the data doesn't even substantiate it. The link just sends you to mdapplicants.com, it doesn't actually show the statistics. Again, that's like putting nothing more than "The Bible" in a bibliography. Until the data is actually presented that stat is not verified. 
--Posted by AucamanTalk 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you bold-facing this? And I did not originally write these. I'm quoting User:TheRegicider's comments above. AucamanTalk 03:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed: "but are frequently limited to D.O. and third-tier programs, ....".  Statement links to the homepage -- #  )... No UCR profile on MDApplicants.com exists and information is not verifiable.  In addition, UCRGrad begs the question "what happens to the hundreds of other premeds!!?"  I contend that there were less than 100 applicants last year and that the rate of acceptance is higher at UCR than nationally.  (I believe the number of applicants is around 60, but I could be wrong).  I believe they are expected to receive between 100 and 200 applications in this upcoming application cycle.  Regardless, none of this information is pertinent to the article, just an FYI that saying "hundreds" of students apply is a misinformed exaggertion. Pimpclinton 05:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academics

message: :The school's nickname is "Univeristy of Chinest Refugees?" Not only is that incredibily offensive, it's not even a nickname anyone uses. Show me where the UCSB wiki article mentions its nickname of "U Can Study Boozed" or "Univeristy of Casual Sex and Beer." IT DOESN'T. That's the fourth nickname that's been put up on this article, making it clear that the authors are just trying to come up with things that are offensive, not true.
--Posted by AucamanTalk 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the nickname may or may not be offensive, yours is certainly uncivil. Please refer to WP:CIV. Calwatch 04:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The action you can take is to kindly ignore it. Actually, I think you (and possibly Calwatch) are missing the irony in his statement that he used to illustrate his point. His point was that this nickname, and "UC Rejects" and the others, are offensive nicknames, and that it is ridiculous to assert otherwise as Insert-Belltower did. He is undoubtedly correct about that. Also, both you and Insert-Belltower put "UC Rejects" into the article many times over, and you even added obviously-false references to back it up. Anyway, they aren't in the article now, so I won't continue about that. –Tifego(t) 04:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: But it's a self reference, and irrelevant to the article. There are no references in Nexis to "UC Rejects". Thus, it is just a gratuitous cheap shot. Calwatch 03:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Univeristy of Chinest Refugees"

message: :As of right now, a user has to pay to view them. Given certain patterns of dishonesty, how can we trust these are real? 
--Posted by AucamanTalk 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please no name calling. I do agree with UCRGrad, though, that just because a source is in printed form or requires payment does not remove its legitimacy. Calwatch 03:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US News and Review Stats

message: :StudentsReview.com: I posted this earlier, but I'll do it again. They quote StudentsReview.com whose unreliability is proven on the front page, when it estimates the school's average ACT score is a 14. How can you honestly tell me that this is non-bias when it just quotes random negative comments from a messageboard? You can't even verify that these people aren't quoting themselves. It's clearly against the rules to cite non-verifiable sources.Of course they don't site the postive reviews like this one: "My overall take on the campus was a good one, the education I received I use everyday at my job. My roommate and I were hired before we graduated from UCR and both received a signing bonus along with a relocation package." The placement of this quote so clearly indicated bias it's not even funny. If we are going to get into the business of quoting random internet users, we must do it evenly. The opinion of a single unverifable poster? That cannot be consider NPOV. 
--Posted by AucamanTalk 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: StudentsReview.com barely skirts acceptability of WP:V. A student newspaper or quotes from a Fiske's Guide or Yale Daily News Guide would be much better. Calwatch 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: StudentsReview.com

message: :UV Theater. It's used because of a "due to lower patronage by moviegoers"? Ummmm. That's just unnecessary negativity. ALL MOVIE THEATRES HAVE LOW PATRONAGE AT 9 IN THE MORNING. The author purposely uses that language to imply that there is something wrong with the theaters, when in reality, it's a great relationship all around. The lin adds NOTHING to the article except for further negativity and bias. 
--Posted by AucamanTalk 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the conclusion would work. It could also be spun as an innovative joint use project for the university. You don't know either way, unless you can find an article or document as to the agreement the school made with the movie theater, or why it was purchased. Calwatch 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who owns the theater? How much does UCR pay the theater? Nowadays, a lot of theaters don't even operate before 4 PM anyway, because the cost of running matinees compared with ticket take is so low. Without understanding the joint use agreement between the owners and the university (or why the university decided to build a movie theater), we don't know. It should be noted that a lot of big lecture halls at other schools are used for movies and big events in evenings and weekends, so this is not much different. Calwatch 03:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UV Theater

message: :Athletics, which I mentioned earliers: "Because of the commuter nature of the school, school spirit and enthusiasm for UC Riverside athletics is low, and attendance at these events (except promotional games) tends to be minimal." OPINION OPINION OPINION. Not only does the author make a subjective conclusion but they attempt to explain the cause as well--both are inappropriate in a non-biased article. And again, if we're are so worried about UCR's upwards and downwards trends, then I'm sure UCR Grad and InsertBellTower will have no problem adding that both the Women's Basketball and Soccer teams qualified for the Division 1 NCAA Tournament this yea--for the first time in the school's history. Which, aside from the prestige that provides, also guarentees more funding in the future for the athletics department. 
--Posted by AucamanTalk 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is stopping you from adding this information. SoCalAlum 21:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you should stop accusing others of having personal agendas. WP:AGF. Your comments above that look constructive, but the rest ("General Comments") was unnecessary and irrelevant to this article. –Tifego(t) 03:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? It's not helping the article. Stop trying to put the blame on DtEW. –Tifego(t) 03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Lots of schools have poor attendance for sporting events, and most of them are commuter schools. The other schools in the Big West Conference (Fullerton State, UC Irvine, San Jose State) are not known for high attendance either. See, for instance, this editorial from the student newspaper (scared of the thought of the usual 1,000 patron crowd in a 12,000 seat arena); assistant sports editor column complaining about sports apathy, etc. Calwatch 03:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Athletics

message: Where is the source that his name is pronounced this way and what's the significance? AucamanTalk 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is your reasoning, then you shouldn't mind the change, which is made according to this pronunciation guide. –Tifego(t) 03:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. AucamanTalk 03:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not "hay-der" or "high-der"? The first of those seems most logical to assume. –Tifego(t) 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: More neutral would be to use the IPA alphabet. Any linguists in the house? Calwatch 03:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Rubidoux is pronounced in the standard way with the French "dough" as the last syllable. I agree Haider could go many ways. Calwatch 03:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas Haider (pronounced 'Hater')

message: This page is in a serious need of some archiving, but most of the discussions seem recent. What do you guys think? AucamanTalk 02:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everything above the "NPOV editing" section can safely be archived at this time. –Tifego(t) 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Calwatch 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. AucamanTalk 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Finally, some good news. I've replaced the POV dispute tag with a POV-check tag. The article has made significant improvements NPOV-wise, for which I compliment all users involved. Right now, the article fits into the "Articles which you have edited to be neutral, but may have overlooked something" category. I don't plan to defend the POV-check, so anyone with a decent reason should feel free to remove it. Deltabeignet 03:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is definitely good news, and I agree with Deltabeignet that this article has made significant progress in its neutrality. However, I replaced  with  because I think the choice between the tags boils down to how active the dispute is, not so much how serious the article's POV problems are. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the article's NPOV status in the past few days, so it's still an active dispute. Tag placement isn't a huge issue for me, so anyone can feel free to change back to POV check if they feel it's warranted. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV to POV check 

message: According this this article in the Harvard Crimson (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510011) the national percentage of alumni donations is only 12%, with the top schools like Harvard at about 40%. The stat's purpose is clearly to paint a negative picture of the school, with the lack of context blowing it out of purportion. Even the, these stats hardly hold much water when it comes to rankings. US News and Review (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/weight_brief.php) allows them to account for no more than 5% of their total scores. Thusly, the statistic is already incorporated into the article via the USNR ranking. I'm going to delete it until a justifiable explaination is given. TheRegicider 05:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni Giving Rates

message: TheRegicider has argued that we shouldn't include alumni giving rates. I have summarized his reasons and explained why he is incorrect or his logic is fault.
Reason 1: National alumni donation rate is 12%, at Harvard about 40%. Therefore, the lack of context "blows it out of proportion." (UCR is 5%)
This is irrelevant.  The fact is, 5% is STILL extremely low compared to those national average and Harvard.  Put differently, the national average is 2.4x higher than UCR, and Harvard is 8x higher.  We might even consider adding the previous sentence in too.
Reason 2: USNWR only gives 5% weight to alumni giving rates. Since we have already listed overall rank of UCR, we don't need to list facts that comprise the overall rank.
This reasoning makes no sense.  As another user already tried to explain to TheRegicider, people don't want to just know the overall rank, they want to know how it was derived -- what facts or statistics contributed to that overall rank.  If all of the component scores were not important, USNews wouldn't have listed them out in their master table -- they would have simply listed each school next to its numerical rank and that's it.
Reason 3: Theregicider changes his argunent slightly and writes that if alumni giving rates "held any real significance it would account for more than 5% of the schools total ranking."
This is also untrue.  If alumni giving rates did NOT hold any real significant, US News would NOT have used it to calculate the overall rank TO BEGIN WITH!  The FACT that USNWR even considers this statistics is PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that it IS important.
Reason 3: You haven't signed any of the remarks, so in all liklihood, you were responding and supporting yourself. [directed to unsigned editors]
Wikipedia allows unsigned editors.  Using the fact that some authors didn't sign their work is not a valid reason to revert or to make accusations (especially when both anonymous users EXPLAINED their reasoning in discussion.)
Reason 4: The word "indeed" at the begining of the quote implies a tone not appropriate in an unbiased article. 
Indeed is not an inherently biased word.  In context it does not add bias either. It is simply a linker word that maintains the direction of the paragraph. 
Reason 5: "No one knows anything about alumni giving rates, so 5% seems low when in fact it is not."
As explained above, the national average is 2.4x as high as UCR's alumni giving rate.  It IS LOW.  ..however just in case people aren't familiar with the national average, the sentence also qualifies this percentage with UCR's nationwide rank in terms of alumni giving.  That way, there's no way you could be confused about whether 5% is high, middle, or low.  It is low because UCR is ranked LAST in alumni giving.
Reason 6: For instance the fact that public university's typically have far far lower giving rates, that as a whole the rates have declined accross the entire country, etc etc.
Again, UCR's nationwide RANK for alumni giving is also specified in the sentence you are trying to delete.  Therefore, it really makes little difference that public universities have lower giving rates - UCR is the LOWEST of ALL public universities.  Whether or not rates have declined is irrelevant as well.
Reason 7: Few if any of the other school's article include this stat,
This article is far more comprehensive and informative than articles from other schools on Wiki.  As many people have pointed out in the past, using other wikipedia articles is NOT a valid reference.  I will also reiterate that other Wiki articles on colleges are NOT the benchmark for how a college article should be written.
Reason 8: I'm not obliged to do anything but make this article fair, as it stands right now the statistics are arranged in such a way that are overwhelmingly negative.
So your true reason for removing the line is to take out a negative fact about UC Riverside.  Unfortunately, if you make a list of all the important statistics one would be interested in from a university, they're all included in the article.  The problem is that most of these statistics are not favorable when it comes to UCR.  There's really no way to change the fact that when compared to other UC's, UCR is usually at the bottom or near the bottom in just about everything (except for pollution) - and this is easily substantiated in just about any University-wide publication.  HOWEVER, there's a difference between relaying the FACTS about UCR (which are quite negative from an objective standpoint) and BIAS.  By removing important facts and sugar-coating others, you are actually INTRODUCING positive bias!  As it stands now, the article is an accurate portrayal of UCR.  I truly and honestly believe that.
Reason 9: You're new here--or an old person with a new name attempting to fool people--so I'm going to go ahead and revert this. [directed at an unsigned editor]
So in the absence of any other good argument, you're going to simply revert because the guy didn't sign his name?  Unless you can produce a Wiki article that permits reversion of unsigned article changes, I think you're definitely out of line here. 
UCRGrad 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses to ALL of TheRegicider's Arguments against Including Alumni Giving Rates 

message: I have a problem with this sentence in the article: 
:"Approximately 1 out of every 8 freshmen leave UC Riverside after their first year, based on a freshman retention rate of 85%, the lowest of any UC"
The problem is that it says the same thing twice. 1 out of every 8 means 85% retention rate, so it's stupid to say the same thing twice in a row. 85% is the more accurate of the two numbers, so I think that's the one that should stay in the article, but certainly not both of them should stay. –Tifego(t) 21:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant sentence

message: Sorry Regicider, you lose. UCRGrad has given you 8 reasons why the statistic should stand, and your response: "since you appear to be incapable of understanding that it's not just the stat, but the way it is presented, I will make it more appropriate tonight. Until then, it stays out." Not only does this statement show a lack a maturity it also shows an unwillingness to be reasonable. You have lost my respect. I will REVERT any changes that you make until you apologize to UCRgrad and conduct yourself in a more civil manner.
Good Day
Insert-Belltower 22:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regicider Issue

message: Why does this article have so many images? Most articles with this many images also have a lot more text than this.
*I especially wonder why there are 2 different pictures of ugly brown construction sites in this article (one in "Academics" and another in "Student life"). Lots of places have construction going on all over, but there's no case for it being so prominently displayed in an article unless some huge proportion of the campus is perpetually in a state of construction. Also, the caption on the first construction image sounds quite hateful (albeit subtly): "Construction in the core of campus. Typical brown-brick buildings to the left, right, and background, alongside tree/cement landscaping". The image already speaks for itself as far as building color and where the trees and cement are, and saying it's "in the core of the campus" is no more necessary or relevant than saying it's "on campus".
*The DDR image is kind of random. I think if anything else should go (in addition to the first one above), it's probably that.
*About the note, "The associated brown haze can be seen in the Carillon Tower photo on the right, where it obscures the bottom third of the sky." This seems unnecessary to me, especially because the photo has nowhere near enough "brown haze" in it to honestly describe it as "obscuring" the bottom third of the sky. –Tifego(t) 23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The belltower picture is fine, and I didn't say otherwise, but there's no need to have two construction site pictures, unless mounds of dirt and "typical brown-brick buildings" are also key symbols of the school. And "typical" is the word I had the biggest problem with in the caption. It's too vague a term, and not very neutral-sounding to describe anything as "typical". (It also didn't help that both of the construction captions used that same word.) I mean, if it's important that it's typical, it would be much better to say what exactly that means, or at least use a slightly less-loaded word such as "common". –Tifego(t) 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I'm not extremely adamant about that. Just take it as my opinion that it was a (minor) violation of WP:NPOV. –Tifego(t) 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images & captions 

message: :"Riverside area is referred to as a “smog belt” because of its above-average level of air pollution."
Who refers to it as that? It should be worded differently in the article. –Tifego(t) 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In 2005, emeritus professor and Harvard graduate Dr. Bert Kopecsky decried Riverside air standards in the New England Journal of Medicine, saying, 'Look at the higher concentration of particulates and nitrates. This place is practically a smog belt'.(footnote)"  Deltabeignet 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Weasel word]]ing