Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 14

message: I think we should try an article RFC as soon as possible. I'll propose a wording for the RFC right here; if anyone has some feedback on other ways we can word it, feel free. I'd like it posted on WP:RFC/SOC as soon as possible, perhaps within the next couple of days. Once we post it, I think we should set aside a section for response, with subsections for each point. I also recommend archiving all discussions prior to the page's protection and/or the RFC, so we have a fresh start without personal attacks and acrimony. Here goes:
*Talk:University of California, Riverside: The page is currently protected after months of disputes regarding the relevance of some sections to the article's subject, the inclusion of images, and the article's overall NPOV status. Responses should go in the "Request for comment" section of the talk page, covering the following points:
:*The 909: Does the section titled "The 909" belong in this article? Some editors say it's important to discuss negative aspects of California's Inland Empire, where UCR is located. Others think the section focuses on inappropriate stereotypes and/or is irrelevant to the article's subject. A larger issue is, how much should a university article discuss its surrounding community?
:*Air pollution: How much should the article discuss Riverside's pollution problems, if at all? Does this subject merit its own section? Should the section title describe pollution as "severe", "hazardous" or neither?
:*Images: Should the article display images of construction on campus, or do they give an unwarranted negative impression of the school? For a while, :Image:ucrcampus.jpg, which has been called the "valley of dirt photo", was displayed. A replacement, :Image:Commexp.jpg, has been suggested, but not agreed upon.
:*Overall NPOV status: There are many disputes over wording, possible undue weight and alleged original research. We might need feedback on better ways to phrase many parts of this article. (errors fixed 04:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever is done, I think the main issue in contention here is POV. Other issues like incivility, sockpuppetry, etc. -- while important -- are relatively minor. starkt 11:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to another article content RFC, however I don't think the issue of whether we do one or not has any bearing on the second RFARB, which will be entirely focused on user conduct violations and not article content disputes.--Amerique 04:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. RFC will deal with the content issues, while RFAr, if necessary, will deal with user conduct. szyslak (t, c, e) 05:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC proposal

message: Would either UCRGrad or Insert-Belltower be interested in discussing editing conflicts to the point of resolving them in WP:Mediation? This seems to be the only step that hasn't been tried, and if good faith efforts are made, could prevent further steps in WP:DR.--Amerique 22:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not accept mediation.Insert-Belltower 14:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal Mediation?

message: So now this page is protected. If nothing else, that should give us the impetus to come to an agreement on the issues that have divided us. The way things are going at the moment, the page could well remain protected for weeks or even months, while our disputes remain unresolved. Who wants that to happen?
Regardless of the merits of one side or the other, endless reverting is not the way to solve our problems. Personally, I strive to avoid reverts as much as possible; in fact, I've chosen to follow the one-revert rule and encourage other editors to do the same. My own edits to this article have focused on finding new ways to approach issues. I've abstained from removing or re-adding the same old chunks of text; the same few editors do enough edit warring, so I don't need to add to it. It needs to stop.
That leads me to a related point: Editors need to stop taking absolutely inflexible positions. I hear far too many editors saying things like "If you delete/re-add such and such passage, I'll automatically revert you". Let's all try to be a little more flexible. Let's all open our minds to accept other positions. This doesn't mean we should all start supporting someone else's biased editing. Instead of the same old versions that inevitably end up reverted, let's find other solutions, other ways to phrase this article's content. Let's all be a little more creative; it can't just be a matter of "my version versus your version".
Come on, let's end this long, pointless, contentious debate once and for all. We're all intelligent adults here. We can find a solution. If not, the dispute could end up being solved by the arbitration committee. While that could very well become necessary, nobody wants that. So let's find other solutions fast, or someone will find solutions for us. szyslak (t, c, e) 01:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inflexible on this point -- POV material is out. That is Wikipedia's policy, not mine. It is a policy I have to follow when I'm editing other articles. I'm not going to make an exception for UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower. And it appears that you have misunderstood my stance regarding reversions. I have promised to revert any unjustified reversions of my work (including my removal of POV material.) I have not simply said that I'll revert things I don't like. Again, I am only doing this because Wikipedia is not enforcing its own rule against POV material. starkt 08:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course POV material doesn't belong in this article. That's what led us to this point in the first place: a dispute over the article's NPOV status. I know you're editing in good faith. However, repeated reverts are disruptive no matter what your purpose is. That being said, you're not anywhere near the worse "revert warrior" on this page. szyslak (t, c, e) 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess if one holds that repeated reversions are never justified (even when dealing with a couple of repeat reverters), then it's probably just as well that the page has been protected for the time being. starkt 10:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: The page was protected to slow down the edit war. If people think it is unlikely to break out agiain I will remove the protection.Geni 00:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll definitely break out again if the page is unprotected. I'd keep it on, at least until disputes between users are settled. --WHSTalk 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my limited experience with this page, I think page protection should stay on for now. Metamagician3000 00:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep it protected, per WHS and Metamagician. Right now this shows no signs of working itself out. szyslak (t, c, e) 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it protected, but how about getting rid of the 909 material while it is protected, as well as the only wordage and other obvious POV material? How could that be done? GeorgeLouis 07:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Per Wikipedia:Protection policy, protection is not an endorsement of the current version. A protected page shouldn't be reverted except in cases of vandalism or other extreme cases. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: page protection

message: Please respond to the request for comment on WP:RFC/SOC in the sections below:
:I'm impressed at how many users are offering valuable feedback on this RFC. My only concern is that it's starting to look like a poll, though I'm sure the participants don't intend it that way. I encourage threaded discussion in this RFC section, just like any other talk page section. szyslak (t, c, e) 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the section titled "The 909" belong in this article? Some editors say it's important to discuss negative aspects of California's Inland Empire, where UCR is located. Others think the section focuses on inappropriate stereotypes and/or is irrelevant to the article's subject. A larger issue is, how much should a university article discuss its surrounding community?
*Dump it or move to another article. How does this affect the University? If it does, say so: "Because of XYZ the campus is socially isolated from the surrounding communities" or "Becuse many students come from the surrounding area, which is economically depressed, thus XYZ." Otherewise, no. Herostratus 05:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How much should the article discuss Riverside's pollution problems, if at all? Does this subject merit its own section? Should the section title describe pollution as "severe", "hazardous" or neither?
*Would it not be possible to say something along the lines of: "The Universtity is located in the XYZ region, which is economically depressed and smoggy, but which also features ABC and DEF." I mean, isn't there anything nice to say about Riverside and the Inland Empire? It is in California, after all; at least the climate must be nice. Is it really that much worse than Duluth or Jackson, Mississipi? Herostratus 06:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the smog statistics into a new section dealing with the Air Pollution Research Center, and I hope we can leave it there for a while just to see if we like it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Should the article display images of construction on campus, or do they give an unwarranted negative impression of the school? For a while, :Image:ucrcampus.jpg, which has been called the "valley of dirt photo", was displayed. A replacement, :Image:Commexp.jpg, has been suggested, but not agreed upon.
*If the construction photo portrays the construction of a notable building (in the context of this university), it should be in the article.  However, the dirt photo appears to be merely another attempt to portray the region in a negative light.  Every university in the U.S. undergoes construction at one point or another.  A picture of a mound of dirt in furtherance of that construction serves no encyclopedic purpose. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are many disputes over wording, possible undue weight and alleged original research. We might need feedback on better ways to phrase many parts of this article.
*An idea might be to start all over again, as GeorgeLouis is trying to do. Danny Lilithborne 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand your frustration, I felt the same way a month ago when I stopped looking at/working on this article. I would rather have facts from unbiased and educational sources, than the personal, biased opinions of incorrect or outdated sources. I don't think any direct OR indirect statements should be made about the school at all, and that information should be given so that the reader can easily find the information and read up on it. I appreciate the work that a lot of other people have done to remove tons of NPOV indirect statements/wording in this article and I hope that you stay to work on the article with us. We need all the help we can get and I think this article is beginning to look very good, in terms of facts and being written in an impartial tone. And, off the record, my personal belief is that people give UCR a hard time because of its location. If it was near a beach like the others (sans Merced... which, ironically, also gets poked fun of) and nothing else about the school changed, I gaurantee you these archives would not exist. And that, I think, is rather petty and sad. Again, that is my personal opinion. 66.214.118.69 05:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, about Harvard, there IS a section in the Harvard article dealing with criticisms of that school. It is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University#Views_of_Harvard. The Discussion about this section is rather thorough at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_1#Criticism_of_Harvard , and it reads much like that we have seen here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to a similar, thoughtful section of criticism of UCR. The trouble with the material that UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower want to keep in is that -- unlike the Harvard material -- it is presented with little or no context, as a series of potshots. For example, I could go with something along the lines of the following: "UC Riverside is a campus of the world renowned University of California system (this follows the Harvard template which begins by building the school up as, arguably, the oldest, richest and most famous seat of learning in the country.) UCR follows the University of California's rigorous admissions standards, admitting only the top 12.5% of California high school graduates or the top 4% of any high school class in the state. Its graduate programs are of high caliber, along with all other graduate programs at UC. It is ranked 88th among "national universerities" by U.S. News, etc., etc. (other positive aspects)....However, some criticize UC Riverside as something of a "poor relation" among UC campuses. While campuses at Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Diego get many more applicants than available places for admission, UCR rarely -- if ever -- has more applicants than admissions slots, so it is less selective than other UC schools. Applicants who fail to get into the more popular UC campuses are often "redirected" to UC Riverside. UC Riverside is higher than average among UC schools in the percentage of students who need remedial work...(other negative information.) However, (introducing some counterbalancing positive information) it may well be that the relative lack of cut-throat competition at UC Riverside allows for a less stressful and more productive learning experience for undergraduates. A notable fact about UCR is that it has an unusually high percentage of economically disadvantaged students (Pell Grant recipients) who manage to graduate, according to "Washington Monthly"'s college guide. It also has a high percentage of undergraduates who go on to earn Ph.D's. One advantage of being a "lesser" UC campus, in light of California's prohibition of affirmative action in admissions, is a more diverse student body. And few would deny that UC Riverside, because it is less selective than other UC campuses, provides an opportunity that other campuses do not provide to students who are somewhat marginal and looking for an opportunity to redeem themselves. On the other hand (close with some sharp criticism of the school), Princeton Review has criticized UC Riverside for having too many teaching assistants while "professors are scarce" in undergraduate classrooms. However (context), it should be kept in mind that this problem is quite common in both public and private research universities (including the most prestigious ones.) Last, alumni contributions at UCR are very low. Although, again, public universities in general tend to have low alumni contribution rates." Note that the material presented here, as with the Harvard piece, is presented as a kind of essay, with the actual statistics not present (they can be referenced, however.) starkt 10:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, putting all the stats in -- but in context -- is fine. I think I'll leave it to other editors to do this, though. Feel free to quote what I've written above verbatim, or to make changes as you see fit. starkt 06:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: :Does the section titled "The 909" belong in this article? Some editors say it's important to discuss negative aspects of California's Inland Empire, where UCR is located. Others think the section focuses on inappropriate stereotypes and/or is irrelevant to the article's subject. A larger issue is, how much should a university article discuss its surrounding community?
*Dump it or move to another article. How does this affect the University? If it does, say so: "Because of XYZ the campus is socially isolated from the surrounding communities" or "Becuse many students come from the surrounding area, which is economically depressed, thus XYZ." Otherewise, no. Herostratus 05:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "909"

message: :How much should the article discuss Riverside's pollution problems, if at all? Does this subject merit its own section? Should the section title describe pollution as "severe", "hazardous" or neither?
*Would it not be possible to say something along the lines of: "The Universtity is located in the XYZ region, which is economically depressed and smoggy, but which also features ABC and DEF." I mean, isn't there anything nice to say about Riverside and the Inland Empire? It is in California, after all; at least the climate must be nice. Is it really that much worse than Duluth or Jackson, Mississipi? Herostratus 06:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the smog statistics into a new section dealing with the Air Pollution Research Center, and I hope we can leave it there for a while just to see if we like it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Air pollution

message: :Should the article display images of construction on campus, or do they give an unwarranted negative impression of the school? For a while, :Image:ucrcampus.jpg, which has been called the "valley of dirt photo", was displayed. A replacement, :Image:Commexp.jpg, has been suggested, but not agreed upon.
*If the construction photo portrays the construction of a notable building (in the context of this university), it should be in the article.  However, the dirt photo appears to be merely another attempt to portray the region in a negative light.  Every university in the U.S. undergoes construction at one point or another.  A picture of a mound of dirt in furtherance of that construction serves no encyclopedic purpose. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: :There are many disputes over wording, possible undue weight and alleged original research. We might need feedback on better ways to phrase many parts of this article.
*An idea might be to start all over again, as GeorgeLouis is trying to do. Danny Lilithborne 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your frustration, I felt the same way a month ago when I stopped looking at/working on this article. I would rather have facts from unbiased and educational sources, than the personal, biased opinions of incorrect or outdated sources. I don't think any direct OR indirect statements should be made about the school at all, and that information should be given so that the reader can easily find the information and read up on it. I appreciate the work that a lot of other people have done to remove tons of NPOV indirect statements/wording in this article and I hope that you stay to work on the article with us. We need all the help we can get and I think this article is beginning to look very good, in terms of facts and being written in an impartial tone. And, off the record, my personal belief is that people give UCR a hard time because of its location. If it was near a beach like the others (sans Merced... which, ironically, also gets poked fun of) and nothing else about the school changed, I gaurantee you these archives would not exist. And that, I think, is rather petty and sad. Again, that is my personal opinion. 66.214.118.69 05:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, about Harvard, there IS a section in the Harvard article dealing with criticisms of that school. It is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University#Views_of_Harvard. The Discussion about this section is rather thorough at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_1#Criticism_of_Harvard , and it reads much like that we have seen here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to a similar, thoughtful section of criticism of UCR. The trouble with the material that UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower want to keep in is that -- unlike the Harvard material -- it is presented with little or no context, as a series of potshots. For example, I could go with something along the lines of the following: "UC Riverside is a campus of the world renowned University of California system (this follows the Harvard template which begins by building the school up as, arguably, the oldest, richest and most famous seat of learning in the country.) UCR follows the University of California's rigorous admissions standards, admitting only the top 12.5% of California high school graduates or the top 4% of any high school class in the state. Its graduate programs are of high caliber, along with all other graduate programs at UC. It is ranked 88th among "national universerities" by U.S. News, etc., etc. (other positive aspects)....However, some criticize UC Riverside as something of a "poor relation" among UC campuses. While campuses at Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Diego get many more applicants than available places for admission, UCR rarely -- if ever -- has more applicants than admissions slots, so it is less selective than other UC schools. Applicants who fail to get into the more popular UC campuses are often "redirected" to UC Riverside. UC Riverside is higher than average among UC schools in the percentage of students who need remedial work...(other negative information.) However, (introducing some counterbalancing positive information) it may well be that the relative lack of cut-throat competition at UC Riverside allows for a less stressful and more productive learning experience for undergraduates. A notable fact about UCR is that it has an unusually high percentage of economically disadvantaged students (Pell Grant recipients) who manage to graduate, according to "Washington Monthly"'s college guide. It also has a high percentage of undergraduates who go on to earn Ph.D's. One advantage of being a "lesser" UC campus, in light of California's prohibition of affirmative action in admissions, is a more diverse student body. And few would deny that UC Riverside, because it is less selective than other UC campuses, provides an opportunity that other campuses do not provide to students who are somewhat marginal and looking for an opportunity to redeem themselves. On the other hand (close with some sharp criticism of the school), Princeton Review has criticized UC Riverside for having too many teaching assistants while "professors are scarce" in undergraduate classrooms. However (context), it should be kept in mind that this problem is quite common in both public and private research universities (including the most prestigious ones.) Last, alumni contributions at UCR are very low. Although, again, public universities in general tend to have low alumni contribution rates." Note that the material presented here, as with the Harvard piece, is presented as a kind of essay, with the actual statistics not present (they can be referenced, however.) starkt 10:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, putting all the stats in -- but in context -- is fine. I think I'll leave it to other editors to do this, though. Feel free to quote what I've written above verbatim, or to make changes as you see fit. starkt 06:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overall NPOV status

message: I just posted a message on the the Hurricane Katrina talk page. It has 14 archives, almost as many as this talk page. Yep, the talk page for a college in California is as long as the talk page for one of the deadliest national disasters and most important news events in U.S. history. Who says we're not engaging in enough discussion? szyslak (t, c, e) 17:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk about Tidal Wave 2, smog in Riverside, and the US News rankings. Now those are some disasters, working on this article has been like conducting a rescue operation in The Perfect Storm.--Amerique 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IB will continue working on this article until he/she dies- which will hopefully be about 60-70 years from now. Insert-Belltower 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk archives 

message: In principle, I have no beef about removing the list of departments and interdisciplinary majors, since they are easily obtained from the UCR Web site, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities advises "Then, in bullet point form, list the schools, colleges, etc. of this university. If appropriate, also list the faculties and departments at the university." This list is not really "redundant," since not too many of the departments are mentioned elsewhere in the article. Do you mean rather that they are "supefluous"? I might agree with you.
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 05:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who removed them, and I wrote that they were superfluous in my edit summary, not redundant. As you mentioned, it's entirely possible to obtain a list from the UCR website and a simple listing of every single department in the school isn't exactly informative. If others think that it should be kept in, I think that we should at least put it in columns so there's not so much blank space in the article. --WHSTalk 06:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would suggest writing up the Marxist Studies program as a paragraph and putting it in the same section as the Native American Studies program.   GeorgeLouis 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Marxist Studies, to my knowledge, is only a minor undergraduate program at UCR that does not have a dedicated research center or departmental status attached. I don't think it needs to be included, but I think UCR's other academic and local and international "diversity" initiatives should be written up, especially Hispanic Studies and the UC MEXUS project.--Amerique 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of departments? 

message: Well, I see that we can edit the article again. I edited the introduction, which implied that UCR is meant primarily to serve local students. Not true. Like other UCs, it enrolls students from all over the world and the United States, in addition to students from throughout California.
I removed the negative POV under "Freshman admissions", reinserted my past information (with sources) on UC's admission policy as determined by the California Master Plan for Higher Education (and an amendment specifying that the top 4% of each California high school class is qualified for admission.) I added an explanation of comprehensive review in light of the university's policy of redirecting students to various campuses.
I removed the entire section on crime -- it was pure negative POV.
I shortened the section on smog. More would be negative POV.
I got rid of negative POV in the "rankings" section, and elaborated on the Atlantic Monthly ratings (per my previous edits.)
Needless to say, reverting my edits will be met with a reversion in turn. starkt 14:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this a fair policy and I think you hovering around WP:OWN. Insert-Belltower 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I hate to agree with I-B, but this is the kind of behavior that is leading people to consider ArbCom intervention. Danny Lilithborne 19:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  Two wrongs don't make a right and all that...  --ElKevbo 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with ElKevbo, Danny Lilithborne and I-B. Edit warring is always harmful, no matter what side you're on. So is promising to edit war. szyslak (t, c, e) 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. So just let UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower own the article because any strong action taken against them (which, in my case, merely amounts to reverting their unjustified reversions of my edits to remove their POV -- POV that is contrary to Wikipedia policy) is "wrong". As I said in the section "Overall NPOV Status", I'm not going to participate in complaints against UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower if you editors who complain endlessly about their POV criticize me for actually doing something about it: removing and keeping out the POV that they have tried to keep in the article. starkt 04:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The way to remove POV material is to simply remove it. I would be removing "UCR is a FANTASTIC campus of the great University of California" if such a statement appeared in the article. I don't remove information just because it is negative. For example, I didn't remove Princeton Review's criticisms about too many TAs and professors being scarce. I remove claims that are POV and shouldn't have been put in the article in the first place. For example, unflattering comparisons of UCR to other UC campuses when the article is supposed to talk about UCR in relation to other colleges and universities in general. I'm not going to continue the "good fight" against UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower if you guys aren't going to be serious about taking them on. You might breathe a sigh of relief if I no longer participate as an editor. Fine, I hope you enjoy the resulting POV article. starkt 04:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Un-Protected

message: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/freshman/scholarship_reqs.html
The above link contains current admission requirements for all UC schools. These are mandatory requirements. If you have any questions about this process, feel free to let me know, I know a lot about it. For now I am replacing this updated link from what I feel is an accurate source with the admissions information from the Berkeley website because it is not accurate. This is the only thing I have changed, besides removing someone's derogatory statement about "bitches"... I feel that both changes were reasonable ones. 66.214.118.69 23:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Admissions Information

message: I know I already talked about it, but it's worth repeating:
"A large percentage of incoming freshmen arrive with inadequate preparation for college-level math and English— 70% of entering students are not ready for calculus (requiring remedial coursework in pre-calculus), and 50-60% are not able to read and write at what the University of California considers the college-level (requiring remediation in English)[6][7]." 
:This is one of the most misleading statements in this wiki entry, especially in regards to "remedial" math. I read the referenced article myself, and noted that the article specifically states that although 70 percent of students do place below calculus, it NEVER stated that pre-calclus was "remedial coursework". In fact, the EXACT statement is this: "further, UCR's math department is no longer offering a <I>Math 3 (intermediate algebra) class since it was considered a remedial course</I>, which will <I>force underprepared students into pre-calculus class</I> and trigger massive failures."  One member expressed concern that students' early failures in mathematics impacts their ability to go into math, engineering, or science fields later on, forcing a disproportionate amount of students into the social sciences</B>."  This article made it clear that remedial math was referring to intermediate algebra and not pre calculus.  This section either needs to be removed or fixed so that it is more NPOV.  Teknosoul02 23:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Remedial" coursework

message: In order to prevent an edit war before it begins... the biomedical sciences program offers classes all over campus. In the physics 2000 lecture hall, the UNLH, and several classes are held on the bottom FLOOR of the statistics building. This has been discussed, before. The statistics building has several stories, one of those stories is underground. It looks just like all the other above ground floors in the building. Insert-Belltower and UCRGrad thought it was a basement. It is clearly not a basement and using the word basment to describe it is not only false but it is just another insignificant cheap shot they insist on taking at this school, for reasons I don't understand. So if you see the word "basement", please revert it out. If I have to drive all the way out there to take pictures of the place, I will. Facts are facts, let's not start this again when the article is actually starting to look very good. Thank you. 66.214.118.69 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the B in Stat B650 doesn't stand for Basement?  Also, I believe they were referring to the medical school-specific classes.. the ones you take if you're fortunate enough to be one of the 24.  Of the three classes that currently show up at http://www.classes.ucr.edu/schedule/ if you choose Biomedical Sciences, none show a location other than the Statistics building or the  Biomedical Teaching Complex. Can you provide any examples of medical school classes that are not taught in those two locations? SoCalAlum 16:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it really matter in an encyclopedia? Just wondering what the fuss is all about? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 17:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does matter that we get facts correct.  Further, this is one of several minor facts (?) that I (and I suspect others) view as having been inserted in a subtle attempt to introduce and perpetuate a negative POV in the article.  We need not only establish that it's facutally correct but also relevant to this article.  --ElKevbo 18:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good point, ElKevbo. It may certainly be true that there was not enough toilet tissue in the women's restroom in Blahblah building on April 3, 1952, but is it relevant? Is there a WikiP rule we can cite? GeorgeLouis 03:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point appears to be that just because it's factually correct it doesn't need to be in the article.  If that is your pont and you are applying to this particular fact, then I completely agree and have stated in the past (on multiple occassions) that this is not relevant to the article and should probably be removed.  I don't think it's important to note that certain classes are taught in the lowest level of a particular building.  If there were some evidence that the facilities were inadequate or otherwise noteable than that would be different.  But the mere location of some classes is not noteable and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article about the school.  --ElKevbo 03:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: SoCalAlum, fall 06 is the first quarter that I have ever seen which has biomed classes all located in the stats building. In all the previous quarters of the previous years, they have been in various science-oriented lecture halls and classrooms. And in my epxeriences at this school, there is a good chance that they will be in different locations in the winter quarter, as this school is in the process of building at the moment and things often got moved around when I went there, anyway. That is typical. As you know, the definition of a basement is the lowermost portion of a structure partly or completely below ground level that is used for storage. Since the bottom floor of the building is not used for storage and has classrooms, smaller lecture halls, labs, etc. and looks like the rest of the building, it is not a basement. On a side note, I agree with GeorgeLouis... if we are going to put the location of these classes, we should either put the locations of ALL classes on campus or not put them at all. That is very unecessary information to begin with, which again leads me to believe IB is doing this for the sole purpose of making UCR look bad. 1) the information is incorrect and 2) it is not needed. 66.214.118.69 20:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I found the reference, so let's use it: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. That is at [] . Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Biomedical Sciences Program

message: The item that was replaced cited two faulty sources: Racism Rising in the Golden State at http://www.alternet.org/story/27461/?comments=view&cID=53268&pID=53243, which had nothing to say about UCR crime, and http://police.berkeley.edu/annual_report/2004/riverside/miscellaneous_activity.html, which cited five hate crimes in 2004 but did not note that such crimes dropped to only one in 2005 — an insignificant figure when compared to the number of alcohol offenses (50).
Links were added so readers can go to the source and get more information.
The item about the cartoon in the campus newspaper was dropped because it is too inconsequential to mention, besides being yesterday's news.
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 04:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. On the issue of the newspaper cartoon, the real story is that a college newspaper posted a tasteless, bigoted cartoon. I'm sure most college papers have published at least one. It's not notable and only serves to advance the POV that UCR's community is "racist". szyslak (t, c, e) 07:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reasons for the deletion are given in the first paragraph of this section. The source as checked by your well-meaning editor did not verify the fact claimed, and the passage of time has made the figure about hate crimes in 2004 irrelevant. The campus newspaper item is old news, a one-shot deal that doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. If the reader is interested in current statistics, the links are there and can be updated from year to year. Yours in good faith, GeorgeLouis 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campus security replacing item about discrimination and hate crimes . . .  

message: I paid for a one-month Internet subscribtion to the Riverside Press-Enterprise archives because I wanted to check some of the sources in the article. I've only used one of my 10 hits, and the sub will continue for another three weeks. If anybody wants to check an old story from the P-E, please let me know and I will try to find it for you in the archives.
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press-Enterprise articles 

message: Hi. I'm absolutely new to this so I didn't quite know if I might've been incorrect in making a slight change.
Changed Mascot : Tartan-wearing bear -to- Scotty the tartan wearing bear. And I apologize in the event I may have violated some wikipedia policy.
--Atieonfire 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome. You did exactly the right thing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 05:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight Changes 

message: While I understand the article is in a transformative period, and is much more neutral than it used to be, I have to say the current bulletpoint organization of some of the sections gives it the feel of being an office memo or a powerpoint presentation rather than an encyclopedia article. It is a very informative presentation, but it doesn't read to me entirely like an article. Also, it seems to me that while the article has become much more neutral in tone, it has also become less organized in terms of its categorical structure, with student gov mixed in with sports, and a whole grab bag of different items listed under "academic innovations."
I have great respect for all the editors involved in rendering this artice NPOV. I am only criticizing because I would like to help get the article up to featured quality, and every college article that has attained that distinction structures information using narratives rather than bulletpoint lists,  which however are clearly marked and deliniated. I will try experimenting with the article's infostructure over the next week.--Amerique 16:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that as well when I was going through the revamped version of this article. It could use some structural cleanup. --WHSTalk 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: bulletpoints?

message: Kinda going back to that list of majors/departments, as well as the current way its setup with the mention of Native American / Marxist /Haider programs, would anyone agree to a different article page for this sort of thing? The featured article universities (For example, Duke, Michigan State, and UMich) generally seem to follow that as a template, and I think it also helps clean up the article. --WHSTalk 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about that. Any new page would give us just one more to protect from vandalism and POV changes. I'd say keep it the way it is, with almost everything on just this one page (except for History of the University of California, Riverside). And, speaking frankly, Duke is Duke and UCR is, well, UCR. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 02:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noted Educational Features