Talk:University of California, Berkeley/Archive 2

message: I oppose the use of the wurster image in the article.  Although it has SOME relevance, it crowds the page and is extremely unattractive.  If it were to be relevant to the text, it should be placed where the Wheeler image is now, and I feel that would be a mistake. Ckoala84 1:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wurster Image 

message: I made a few large scale changes in the beginning of the section (complete rewording, moved a paragraph). Hope it helps with the flow. I'm still unhappy about the large amount of small paragraphs. Perhaps I'll tackle that at a later time. Arcimpulse 02:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider the problem tackled. :) Arcimpulse 09:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Confirmed (don't tell anyone) but you won't be able to find one reliable source for it. ;-) This tradition has also been ended due to legal action as of 2006. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trisweb (talk • contribs) 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports and Traditions section 

message: I added a part called "Setting" to describe the physical environment and added a link to the 2020 landscape plan. Hank chapot 04:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Setting

message: hi, this article should have the racial make up of the undergraduate, graduate, or total student population. where can i find that?--Muchosucko 23:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  racial percentages makeup 

message: I've searched for more than half an hour on google and can't find any source for the following paragraph other than a few words on Eldridge Cleaver teaching a course:
"1968-69 saw thousands of police and National Guard on campus. Police from over a dozen states were present, some as young as sixteen. Ronald Reagan, who as governor of California was head regent, confronted Eldridge Cleaver's attempt to teach the first Black Studies class. Police used pepper gas on the main shopping street, even when there were no demonstrations. Thousands of police encircled campus, herded everyone under the camera, then started beating."
I've deleted the paragraph, but if anybody out there can find a source, then by all means put it back in.Arcimpulse 06:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add it back but insert a "fact" tag which will say that a citation is needed. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 20:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The ASUC article needs work, anyone here care to look at it? —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 10:38Z
See also:  —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 10:47Z
:I guess I should talk about what to add to it on its Talk page, no?  I could contribute a bit on the Graduate Assembly (I was on their exec. comm. and parliamentarian for the 2002-2003 academic year. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 22:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ASUC]] 

message: I created a template for UC Berkeley, but I've already had a couple of commentors say that it is too large. One suggestion was for sub-templates, but I have no idea how to implement that. Any other ideas for improvement? My inspiration was the articles for University of Michigan and Michigan State University, both of which have become featured articles. Arcimpulse 01:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested "sub-templates". What I meant by that is this: Create 6 normal templates. One is the current one, and then one each for Academics, Athletics, etc. That way you could shrink the templates some that you'd put on each page. --Falcorian (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ha. Well in that case I'll get right on it. Arcimpulse 07:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! --Falcorian (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: At 61 kb, this article is gigantic. I'm going to start seeing if I can pare down the Sports and Tradition section. I think the other sections are fine with the exception of the Campus architecture and architects. It seems in dire need of a subpage. Arcimpulse 06:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't you subpage sports and tradition before paring it down? Playing the Devil's advocate, some may value those parts of the page more than you do (not that I personally care). -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Duh. I didn't realize Sports and Traditions already had a subpage. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 18:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article size

message: I went through and reorganized the article. I'm hoping we can get this thing up to Feature Article level! My main goal in editing was to organize it more logically/hierarchially and generally pare down the article by giving oversized sections their own articles. When I started the article was 57 kb; now it's a more svelte 43 kb. I tried not to step on too many toes, though personally I'm still a bit embarrassed by the rampant boasting. (Folks, people know that Berkeley is prestigious; ya don't have to belabor the point! Be secure in its prestige!) I know quoting rankings are a fact of life with university entries, so hopefully giving them their own section will help contain 'em.
It'd be really nice if someone went through and rewrote the student life section, especially student groups, so that it reads more like one section (i.e., with a point) instead of a dozen scraps duct-taped together. Also, the admissions subsection could probably be summarized in a single sentence somewhere else, along the lines of "Berkeley's undergraduate admissions rate is… with an average GPA/SAT I of…", but I didn't feel like doing that tonight.
—Gku 11:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work! I've been waiting for someone to give the campus section its own page because I got caught up in updating other pages and never got around to it. Arcimpulse 09:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: The contributions to computer science section seems oddly out of place.  Mostly, because it highlights a single department, leaving the impression that is Berkeley's main claim to fame.  That's not really so, as a glance at the Nobel laureates shows: 7 chemistry, 7 physics, 4 economics.  It's not that the CS stuff shouldn't be there; they were huge in that.  Rather, it's the placement.  Maybe there ought to be a separate main section on research breakthroughs at Berkeley. That's also important because Berkeley's extraordinary international reputation is based on the research, which is really mentioned only in passing (other than CS).  Without that research tradition, Berkeley would be just yet another of a couple hundred big state schools. JasonKitrick 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, add other sections and material. -- Joebeone (Talk) 01:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yoann, I think you are missing the point of the comment.  Back in April, when this discussion was active, there was a well-deserved discussion of Cal's CS contributions, but an underserved lack of discussion of the other excellent research that was done at Cal, which lead to the Nobel prizes mentioned here. The idea was not to downplay, or ignore CS, but rather to point out the need to *also* include (i.e., "add other sections and material") those other relevant areas.  That said, do you know if anyone has created a list of Turing Award winners, and their affiliations?  If such info exists on wikipedia or elsewhere, we could use it to better *quantify* the impact of Berkeley on CS development.  Edhubbard 22:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CS 

message: I noticed there was no talk section for it. I'd like here the idea in full before I make a comment. --Falcorian (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one seems to want to merge them, so I'm going to remove it. --Falcorian (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had wondered about that. No will, no merge. The article would only be larger with that content. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: Could anyone write a small piece on their new service which brings their courses into iTunes and into anyone's computers? http://itunes.berkeley.edu/
: Wow. I didn't know that we had done this.  I'll look into it. -- Joebeone (Talk) 21:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's more: http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=22039 I don't have time to add this to the article, but you are welcome to. -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Berkely on itunes

message: I know it may irk people from other UC campuses when the UC Berkeley is referred to as Cal, etc., but the fact is that these are registered trademarks of the university and exist as common names for the school. I don't see why it offends people that the school is referred to as Cal.
:Just tell them that the school was founded in 1868 as the University of California, thus "Cal", and "California." We see no need to change our name just because we built other campuses ;-) See the above argument on the usage of Cal. Trisweb 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Cal"

message: Would someone with some Berkeley knowledge please head over to Transportation Library, UC Berkeley and do some cleaning up of that article?  I know nothing about the library and it really reads like a fact sheet more than an article (like, for example, the library hours were in it before I removed it).  If anyone can help, that'd be great.  I also wonder if anyone thinks it really deserves an article (I don't see an article on any other library other than the main library article.  Metros232 11:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start working on that article soon, I also planned on creating articles for the other university libraries, I'll work on that as well to bring all that info up to speed. Joshlmay 01:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Transportation Library, UC Berkeley]] 

message: There is a claim under the Student Groups section that "Today, a substantial majority of students at the campus oppose Affirmative Action." Where is this claim substantiated? In fact, ASUC Senator Van Nguyen was just elected with a large popular vote on a platform centered on Affirmative Action. Joshlmay 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affirmative Action Claim 

message: I do not think this qualifies for fair use, as the picture is relatively new (compared to the age of the hall) and it therefore seems that a new picture of it can be easily taken. Or, a PD Old image can probably be located (I think the library has one), in which case it's a moot point. --Falcorian (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that particular image really doesn't show anything that wouldn't be displayed in a modern picture. --Fastfission 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I replaced it with a free picture. If the old picture showed something vastly unique which justified using it over a free one, I could see a plausible argument for it, but as it is it was just a picture of the building, which we can do with a modern free image. --Fastfission 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... I'm the guy on the left above the ROTC guy's heads... What are the chances... But good sub. :-) --Falcorian (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Hall Picture 

message: " and the University has managed the nation's two principal nuclear weapons labs (now also used for more peaceful research) at Livermore and Los Alamos ever since. " Recently there was a change in management. Isn't Los Alamos now managed by consortium of UC and Bechtel and others? Or is that Livermore? Also, UC manages Lawrence Berk Nat Lab, but this is not mentioned. --GangofOne 20:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know off the top of my head, but I seem to remember it being Los Alamos that was the joint venture... Althought it may also be Livermore. As for LBL, it's mentioned in the form of the Rad Lab, but I'm going to add in a mention that it became LBL. --Falcorian (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: UC (not just UCB) now co-manages LANL as part of consortium (Los Alamos National Security, LLC), yes. LLNL is still UC-only, ditto LBNL. --Fastfission 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LBNL

message: I started a naming section to explain the different variations and to get rid of the grating at Berkeley misattribution in the intro line. So far the only verification is from the OMMT, so feel free to alter, move or flesh out the section. ~ trialsanderrors 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: I'm posting this survey request Talk:University of California, Riverside#UCR Survey on all the UC talk pages in order to gather outside opinion on ongoing issues concerning the POV of this article. Please read the article and add your insights to the survey to help us identify any points of consensus in the UCR article. Thanks--Amerique 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Survey closed, thanks--Amerique 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[University of California, Riverside]] Survey

message: Well, I noticed one of my pictures was used for the article, and I have to admit that it doesn't look too good. I'll try to get a better version of the file. Also, I created a table for the Chancellor's list, but it might not fit with the rest of the article (style), so feel free to revert to the original simple listing.- Lrd1rocha 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Changes

message: I uploaded an image which could be used as Cal's logo in the infobox. But the image does not want to appear, at least not for me. Does anyone else want to try to put the logo in?  10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind...the logo appears just fine now.  10:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  logo 

message: This sentence from the lead seems like a bit of an afterthought: "But Berkeley faculty have a no less distinguished record in fields outside the sciences as well."  Perhaps we can add something to this by considering other awards, such as the Fields_medal awarded every four years to the best young mathematicician?  Four winners (out of 44, since 1936 when the award was first given)were affiliated with Berkeley 
* Stephen_Smale : Berkeley Faculty (at least for a time, the bio is not clear)
* William_Thurston: Berkeley PhD (1972) and Faculty member
* Shing-Tung_Yau: Berkeley PhD (1971)
* Michael_Freedman: Lecturer (1973-1975)
Especially given that the award is given for work done before the age of 40, most recipients recieve this award for work that they did during their PhD or shortly thereafter.  
Similarly, in other areas, one mark of distinction is to be awarded a grant from the James_S._McDonnell_Foundation.  Nine Berkeley faculty members have recieved one of these grants.
Wayne Getz: http://www.jsmf.org/grants/cs/awards_2003.htm
Mimi Koehl: http://www.jsmf.org/grants/bmb/collaborative_awards_2002.htm
http://www.jsmf.org/grants/search-archive.php?general=Berkeley (7 archived)
Perhaps there is some non-braggy way to include this information in place of the current sentence? Edhubbard 09:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other fields 

message: How did this end up as third section in the article? I'm sure it is relevant, but why is it considered more relevant than Berkeley's scientific, administrative, architectural or athletic history, just to name a couple? Also, the last sentence, "To learn more about ROTC's history at UC Berkeley, visit Hearst Gymnasium's first-floor exhibits, which showcase historical photographs and memorabilia — including ship's wheels and antique machine guns", makes me wonder if the reason behind this insertion isn't POV pushing. ~ trialsanderrors 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military history

message: "However, introductory classes consisting of hundreds of students are not unusual, and some Berkeley professors are criticized for being more interested in research than in undergraduate teaching."
I'd like to see a citation for the second part of the sentence. --Kyledavid80 00:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a weasel sentence. While unambiguously true, it's true for any research university. Unless there is a survey that ranks Berkeley Xth in teaching effectiveness the sentence should go. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought so. I had changed it, but somebody reverted it to the unchanged version for some reason. --Kyledavid80 03:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's unsourced it can always be removed. I have to keep an eye on it. ~ trialsanderrors 04:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions on Professors