Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 2

message: As User:UCRGrad reverted all of my changes, calling the reasons "unintelligible", I have reinstated some and will explain in detail. (Removed text in bold.)
*"Housing is available to all students for their first year, though a large proportion choose to drive home on the weekends to escape, thus impacting development of campus life." Saying that students leave to escpae is pure speculation. Likewise, the effect of commuting on campus life is speculation.
*"Not surprisingly, UC Riverside ranked #12 nationwide..." Words like "not surprisingly" or "naturall" are words to avoid.
*"...Riverside air is so toxic that it can damage lungs in kids." "So toxic" is a little sensationalist for an encyclopedia article, and doesn't really change the meaning. I also changed "kids" to "children", which sounds more encyclopedic.
*"'Despite this, the use of gasmasks is not prevalent." Do I really have to explain this?
*"The brown haze seen in the background is quite common." This part of the caption adds little, and is difficult to verify aside from firsthand accounts.
*Regarding the 'Student Opinions' section: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. 
Hope that helps. Deltabeignet 06:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV editing 

message: this is demeaning
"The 909" is a very common way of referring to the area, and I think everybody (who lives in Riverside or Southern CA)already knows its associated stigma.  I referenced another Wikipedia article on the Inland Empire (the name for the surrounding area), and did not add any new information that wasn't already mentioned in it.  No article would be complete without mentioning this aspect of student life.  The stigma is so strong that even the television show "The O.C." pokes fun at one of its characters from Chino, CA (also located in the Inland Empire) - this is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Inland Empire, but I chose not to include it.  I have included a verifiable fact, and to the best of my knowledge, it is an accurate reflection and fair addition to the article. ...and it's already information found in another Wikipedia article.
UCRGrad 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, if it's so common, you should be easily able to cite an article or two about it.  See the official policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability.  For research assistance, see Wikipedia:How to write a great article. Also, self-referencing citation within Wikipedia (that is, asserting the truthfulness of an article based upon the content of another article) is generally discouraged because of the risk of a self-referential loop (as in the Emperor's Old Clothes fairy tale) that may have nothing to do with reality.  --Coolcaesar 21:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '909' article really necessary?  

message: Was:== 'UCRGrad' is NOT real Alumni == 
Can you please stop posting all this negative garbage about UCR? ALL UC's have negative things about them, but you CONSTANTLY continue to update and revert negative POVs in this article. I bet you did not even graduate from this school, or even a college in general.  Even if you did, you have not made anything of yourself, because all you have time for is to continue to bash this school and all its alumni.  Please refrain from your constant updates.  You are NOT wanted in this community.
:The above paragraph epitomizes the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem.  Simply put, it is intellectually dishonest to discount an idea or statement based on who puts it forth.  If a statement warrants attack, there should be something concrete about the statement itself (other than 'This was posted by user X') that you can point to and say, "This part is wrong."  The mere fact that UCRGrad posts something does not automatically mean that it is 'negative garbage.'  In many cases, the added material simply provides a more complete perspective that prospective students might value.  Also, it is considered common courtesy to sign your edits on this page.  Please do so in the future.164.67.226.126 05:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention AWIKIPEDIAN, your ad hominem attacks are not only irrelevant, but they really don't contribute much here 

message: Dear readers and fellow editors, 
It has been brought to my attention that there have been concerns of bias in this article - however, more accurately, there is a concern that there is not a "Neutral Point of View," because that is specifically the standard set by Wiki.  Bear in mind that NPOV implies that ALL viewpoints are represented.  In this case, both the positive and negative aspects of UC Riverside should be presented.  
Recently, people have erroneously confused "presentation of negative facts" with "bias."  Readers have been mortified to read the low scores and rankings in US News, and have accused me and others of having a non-neutral point of view.  The incorrectly held belief is that when UCR's shortcomings are mentioned, it equates to bias.  This is simply not true.  A neutral point of view implies that there is a BALANCE of facts, both good and bad.  That is, it is NECESSARY to include statistics that may not shed the best light on UC Riverside.
Furthermore, just because 3-4 individuals adamantly claim that the article is not neutral, does NOT mean that the article is indeed not neutral.  Bear in mind that nearly all of their complaints have been geared towards removing facts and statistics that do not promote UCR's image.  None of them have truly addressed the issue of BIAS, just the presence of facts that they perceive as negative.  Unfortunately, it is grossly insufficient to demand that carefully worded and referenced facts be removed without even a haphazard explanation of why their is bias.  In reality, there really is NO BIAS, and again, people with vested interests in promoting UCR's image wish only for "the good" to be presented, at the expense of having BOTH SIDES presented in a balanced fashion.  
If I and others do not read an adequate explanation of why there is bias, I guarantee there will be an active movement to have NPOV removed.  It's only fair that way.  It doesn't make any sense to place an NPOV flag, but have an adequate explanation why.  Thank you.
UCRGrad 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT ACCUSATIONS OF BIAS 

message: "Look at the entries for the rest of the UCs, none of them have sections about nicknames or rumorss. Where is UCSBs mention of STDs or alcoholism? UC Merced was formed last year, and there is nothing negative? Yeah, I believe that."
I have already addressed this concern previously.  Other UC articles are NOT a benchmark for which a college article is to be based on.  It is irrelevant what is in other UC articles.  Furthermore, there are less negative aspects of the other UC's to begin with - naturally, I would expect more negative aspects to be included in a UCR article.  UC Merced is too new to have useful data for. UCRGrad 04:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I'll concede that my own bias may have something to do with the fact that I have never visited the Riverside, Merced, or San Francisco campuses; I have visited 7 others.--Coolcaesar 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding UCRGrad's claim that there is nothing wrong with Wiki references, actually, Wikipedia:Verifiability refers to information published by "reputable publishers" and "credible, third-party sources."  Wikipedia itself is inherently unreliable because anyone can change it.  If you do not understand the difference between information and a pointer or citation to a source of that information, please see Pointer.  --Coolcaesar 01:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIAS 

message: He clearly is not interested in making this a neutral article, but is obviously attempting to promote the school he goes to.  He has no interest in a rational discussion in TALK, and has admitted that he is "going to goahead and delete whatever I please..." This is a call to all neutral parties to force him to use the TALK page as a medium for discussion, rather than arbitrary and malicious reverts.
UCRGrad 04:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATTENTION: USER 138.23.21.216 IS A UC RIVERSIDE STUDENT WRITING FROM THE UCR DORMS 

message: UCRGrad,
"while your efforts to state the "facts" should be applauded, we should all be reminded that wikipedia is used as a source of information.  when people unfamiliar with the university reads an article such as the one you so dilligently moderate, one can only view the university in a negative light."
More importantly, I would hope that the article could accurately present the pertinent facts about the campus.  It is truly up to the readers to make inferences.  Academically, I think the portrayal of UCR is accurate and meets consensus among people familiar with colleges.  UCRGrad 05:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  thanks! 

message: "Hhahahah. Yeah, I saw the posts you're talking about. I didn't think my name was that catchy, but even here, someone has chosen the name "UCRGraduate"...so who knows...Believe it or not, I'm not the ONLY person out there who might be familiar with some of the negative aspects of the school!" UCRGrad 05:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCRGrad  

message: No justification for this.
-IB
15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable neutrality Statement Removed

message: Until the rest of the UC pages go into similar depths of negativity, some of the stats need to be deleted. This is an article about UCR, not UCR vs the other campuses. The level of seething negativity is unprecedented and clearly out of context. I'll request the lock come down to do so. 138.23.21.216 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Statistics should be deleted because you say so?  Instead of removing 'negative' information to 'restore balance', why not add some facts that cast UCR in a more positive light?  If the article is as slanted as you say, this should be easy. 164.67.226.126 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. There is absolutely NO reason to delete verifiable statistics just because something positive is not available. On the other hand, some of the conclusions made could be made more neutral. Calwatch 21:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Until... 

message: User:UCRGrad has repeatedly removed bias tags from the page. I quote Wikipedia:POV check:
:For situations where you or other editors disagree on NPOV status, or need to reach consensus on neutrality, instead use the neutrality dispute template, , and explain the reasons on the talk page.
:In order to ensure the POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification, it may be removed by anyone if they feel that the issue has been resolved. Please do not edit war over the use of this template. Instead, if you disagree with its removal, place the full neutrality dispute template on the page, explain your reasons on the talk page, and follow the regular NPOV dispute resolution process.
The question here is not whether the article is biased, but rather whether the neutrality is disputed. The fact that the neutrality is disputed is obvious from a quick scan of this talk page. Deltabeignet 22:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: The article incorrectly states that homeschool admissions were introduced to try to increase enrollments. But the homeschool admissions process was developed during the past two years, before enrollment drops occurred or were even foreseen. According to press releases, interviews with those who developed the program, and information provided at the homeschool admissions day last November, the program was established as a means to attract outstanding students to UCR, students presently heading to top private schools like Stanford and Ivy League schools. By being the first of the UCs to admit homeschoolers, UCR hopes to gain some competitive advantage over other UCs in attracting top students. 
:Interviews with those who developed the program are not verifiable information and fail WP:V. Information, such as handouts, given to individuals at the admission do qualify, if a source can be cited. I took the information directly from the newspaper article, and the North County Times is a legitimate daily newspaper that meets WP:V. Calwatch 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official reason was stated in the newspaper article... to increase admissions of home schooled students. You are implying too much into the placement of the sentences, and drawing an unwarranted conclusion. Calwatch 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Rewriting the article is not necessary, but it would be helpful to designate what problems you have with the article (and sign your comments). Calwatch 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeschool admissions 

message: What's the problem here? AucamanTalk 04:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which specific passages are we talking about? AucamanTalk 17:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay great, so you have justified the dispute tag. Could you put each of the concerns in different sections, so we can discuss them seperately? Thank. AucamanTalk 21:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issues

message: Okay no one has answered my question, so I'm going to remove the pov tag until someone steps up and says specifically what's wrong with the article as it stands right now. Which specific sections/passages are biased? I'm not taking sides here, but whoever puts in the dispute tag is responsible for giving an explanation of what's wrong with the article. I'm going to try to read and fix some stuff. AucamanTalk 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay great, so you have justified the dispute tag. Could you put each of the concerns in different sections, so we can discuss them seperately? Thank. AucamanTalk 21:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: 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.
By the way, the phrase "not well known" is entirely subjective and is a conclusion not subtantiated with facts.TheRegicider 20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athletics 

message: I removed these statements just now:
#Based on the fact that UCR was generally not the student's college of choice, UCR has earned the nickname "University of Cal Rejects."
#these courses are actually taught in classrooms located in the basement of the Statistics building and in portable trailers
because statements like that really need to be cited, and I'm not sure any such citation exists in this case. Just because they're true doesn't make them OK to put in the article if they're not also verifiable. –Tifego(t) 01:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced statements 

message: Each concern has to be discussed seperately. Here they are. AucamanTalk 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of changes