Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 9

message: Okay. So one side favors "UCR failed to report crime", but the other wants the article to say "UCR, as well as the rest of the UC system". UCRG and I-B do have a point that one other UC is anything but "the rest of the system". I suggest a compromise, in which we add the qualifier "along with UC Irvine". This adds needed context and enhances the accuracy of the statement, rather than detracting from it. I have made this change. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Szyslak's edit is fine with me.--WHS 08:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break for convenience

message: *The UCR article, in whole or in part, is biased.
:*--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm concurring with Amerique.--WHS 07:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *For the most part, i agree that the article is biased. Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yep, definitely. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *When I was looking over the article, I believe that there are some streaks of bias here and there that may be worked out easily, but nonetheless seemed to leave a bad taste in my mouth when I read over them (even after reading them over several times) as if the author were bitter about the University. (As I need to pick my wife up from work at the moment, I'll put my specific comments in the sections below later on tonight.)  אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree  --ElKevbo 22:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree This article is biased, without a doubt. For every negative remark made, a site can be found showing a positive. Those positives are severely lacking. 66.214.118.69 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree. UCR's strengths are left out or downplayed, and its weaknesses or what it lacks are highlighted. Many of the things emphasized as "weaknesses" are not weaknesses. The school has no Nobel prizewinners? How many schools do? The school has a low alumni giving rate? Alumni of UC and public universities in general do not give a lot to their alma maters. One student in a self-selecting sample of 47 thinks the school is an abomination? Why even mention this, unless you have an ax to grind against the school? Even little things, like noting that the school doesn't have a football team, evidences bias. It would be more appropriate to point out the teams that the school does have. Also, some of the strengths of the University of California as a whole -- of which UCR is a respected part -- should be pointed out to add balance to the article. The article, as it stands, is a good example of the fallacy of special pleading -- telling only one side of the story, in this case the negative side.starkt 13:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  Although Riverside has many problems, the article portrays Riverside in an extremely negative light, in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.  As I have said before, I dislike UCRGrad's tendency to emphasize deficits which UCR shares with practically every other university in the United States.  It is like saying in an article about a rock star that he or she was never trained in opera or saying that a well-known lawyer is not very good at baseball.  Though such statements may be true, the ubiquity of their application makes them non-notable. --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  Despite UCRGrad's assertions to the contrary, there is an obvious bias in the language of the article, with any positive facts being downplayed by negative statistics.  It also does not explain any of the rapid expansion which is happening within UCR and the surrounding area. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree. The article leaves a very bad impression of UCR. Mcgm 20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Definitely not biased.  Negative facts (i.e. admissions statistics, rankings, etc.) are conveyed as objectively as absolutely possible, and only important and necessary ones are included.  Some people have confused the mere presence of negative information with bias - it is not. UCRGrad 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *The UCR article is not biased.Insert-Belltower 03:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral POV of Article

message: *The Admissions section, as currently worded, is biased.
:*--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Again, I agree with Amerique. The information is fine, but the manner in which is written appears biased to me. --WHS 07:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *The information and statistics are fine, but some parts of this article are questionable, such as " Indeed, a large proportion 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 the college-level (requiring remediation in English)". Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Overall, this section could use some gentle NPOV work. The 70%/calculus claim should go--UC doesn't even require calculus to graduate AFAIK. It makes as much sense as, say, "87% of incoming freshmen can't solve differential equations". I never took a day of calculus, and I have a perfectly valid UC Santa Cruz degree. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree I think the dramatically over-long section presents facts which could be shortened by stating that UCR practices an open admissions policy.  It appears that the statistics have been selected and included to present only one side of the open admissions issue with complete disregard for the positive aspects of open admissions.  --ElKevbo 22:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree with above, especially Szyslak,  it's written poorly. 66.214.118.69 03:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree. Pointing out that UCR students have the lowest academic qualifications of UC applicants is a slam on the school that really tells you nothing other than that the author has something against the school. UC applicants as a whole are a select group, and the university has minimum standards that all applicants must satisfy. An objective, non-POV approach would be simply to direct readers to UCR admissions statistics if they are interested. starkt 13:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Weak Agree While the facts about the average students' math and reading/writing abilities are true, I don't think it can be phrased in a way that can maintain a NPOV tone. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *This section cannot be worded any more objectively without compromising its accuracy.  It has already been subject to months of scrutiny, and this has been the best compromise so far. UCRGrad 01:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *While this section may not paint an entirely rosy picture of UCR, that is not the job of an encyclopedia.  I believe this section is unbiased.  SoCalAlum 18:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *This section is not biased. I concur with UCRGrad's observations.Insert-Belltower 03:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree.  While this section appears to be rather negative, I believe the comparisons to other UC campuses are fair in light of the fact that the UC system shares a common application.--Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Admissions

message: *The Rankings and Distinctions section, as currently worded, is biased.
:*--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Phrases such as "are rated high enough to even be ranked" constitute a bias in my opinion.--WHS 07:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree with WHS on this one.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Very biased, per WHS. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree per WHS.  --ElKevbo 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree with WHS. 66.214.118.69 03:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree with WHS. starkt 13:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  Most universities don't have a graduate school mentioned in the U.S. News and World Report graduate school rankings.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Strongly Agree.  This is the section where bias is most obvious, as each positive fact is downplayed by several more negative ones that are emphasized through rhetoric. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Again, this section cannot be worded any more objectively without compromising its accuracy! UCRGrad 01:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *This section is not biased. The facts are presented in an objective and logical manner. 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Several suggestions have been made as to how best to include the non-presence of nobel laureates on faculty, but all of them so far have attempted to "sugar-coat" this negative fact.  It is perfectly acceptable in its current state, however. UCRGrad 01:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Generally speaking, I don't really think that including this is necessary, but I actually buy into UCRGrad's argument that perhaps there is somewhat of an expectation that the schools in the UC system should have Nobel laureates on its faculty, and for UC Riverside not to have any is a bit notable.  HOWEVER, perhaps we can rephrase this sentence like this: Although UC Riverside does not have any Nobel laureates presently on its faculty, for the past decade, has had the most American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) fellows in the nation. (just a suggestion, there might be better ways to convey this information).  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have no problems with the current language. Insert-Belltower 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Personally I don't feel it is necessary to mention it as many other universities (UC included) don't have Nobel Laureates on their faculty. --WHS 07:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *It's irrelevant that UCR doesn't have Nobel laureates. Neither does UC Santa Cruz, and its article doesn't make that claim. What's relevant is if a school does have Nobel laureates, not that it doesn't. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree As discussed several months ago, this is a non-fact whose relevance to this or any other university article has not been established.  Furthermore, what happened to the line that mentioned the recent Nobel laureate who is associated (graduated from, worked at, taught at, I don't remember...) that was here several months ago?  --ElKevbo 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree with Szyslak and ElKevbo. 66.214.118.69 03:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree with Szyslak. It is notable when a school has Nobel prize winners, not notable when a school doesn't have them. I myself don't have $10 million, but I don't think that fact is a noteworthy fact about me. starkt 13:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  For all the reasons stated above.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  This is a non-fact and further contributes to the negative tone of the article. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rankings and Distinctions

message: *Information on the non-presence of Nobel Laureates on faculty is relevant to this article.
:*--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Several suggestions have been made as to how best to include the non-presence of nobel laureates on faculty, but all of them so far have attempted to "sugar-coat" this negative fact.  It is perfectly acceptable in its current state, however. UCRGrad 01:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Generally speaking, I don't really think that including this is necessary, but I actually buy into UCRGrad's argument that perhaps there is somewhat of an expectation that the schools in the UC system should have Nobel laureates on its faculty, and for UC Riverside not to have any is a bit notable.  HOWEVER, perhaps we can rephrase this sentence like this: Although UC Riverside does not have any Nobel laureates presently on its faculty, for the past decade, has had the most American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) fellows in the nation. (just a suggestion, there might be better ways to convey this information).  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have no problems with the current language. Insert-Belltower 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Personally I don't feel it is necessary to mention it as many other universities (UC included) don't have Nobel Laureates on their faculty. --WHS 07:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *It's irrelevant that UCR doesn't have Nobel laureates. Neither does UC Santa Cruz, and its article doesn't make that claim. What's relevant is if a school does have Nobel laureates, not that it doesn't. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree As discussed several months ago, this is a non-fact whose relevance to this or any other university article has not been established.  Furthermore, what happened to the line that mentioned the recent Nobel laureate who is associated (graduated from, worked at, taught at, I don't remember...) that was here several months ago?  --ElKevbo 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree with Szyslak and ElKevbo. 66.214.118.69 03:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree with Szyslak. It is notable when a school has Nobel prize winners, not notable when a school doesn't have them. I myself don't have $10 million, but I don't think that fact is a noteworthy fact about me. starkt 13:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  For all the reasons stated above.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  This is a non-fact and further contributes to the negative tone of the article. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobel Laureates

message: *This section, as currently worded, is biased.
:*--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Again, I am going to agree with Amerique on this matter.--WHS 07:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have to agree with Amerique and WHS on this one.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree Not only is this section biased, it's poorly written and misleading.  The very first sentence implies that an 85% freshmen retention rate is poor when that is about 10% higher than the national average.  The second sentence states that UCR is targeting home schooled students "in order to attract more competitive applicants" when the referenced article is really discussing UCR changing its application process to permit these students to demonstrate their aptitude and ability (since they are lacking many of the traditional records and indicators that non-home schooled students often possess).  In addition, there are other problems with this section, one of which is specifically addressed below.  --ElKevbo 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree Word for word with ElKevbo. 66.214.118.69 03:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree with ElKevbo. starkt 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.   --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree and I don't think this section should be here at all.  As a sidenote, I think it's relevant to point out that only the author of these changes and Insert-Belltower assert a lack of bias throughout. And the fact that the former's username is UCRGrad is something I feel cannot be overlooked. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *This section is worded very objectively, even though it does contain negative information about UCR. UCRGrad 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I concur with UCRGrad's comments that this section is not biased.Insert-Belltower 03:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *The quote is concise, to the point, and well-written. UCRGrad 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *The quotation, in the context of the statistic, is representative and therefore appropriate as is. Insert-Belltower 03:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *If a quote from the site is to be added, it should be one that reflects multiple points of view, not just an extreme one.--WHS 07:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *--Amerique 14:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I strongly oppose the inclusion of this quote.  HOWEVER, if we must include a quote from studentsreview.com, it should be one that is more balanced and reflects many points of view.  so I agree with WHS and Amerique on this one.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *The quote should go. Quotes from public review sites, like StudentsReview, RateMyProfessors, Epinions and Yahoo Reviews, have no place in a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. Personally I"m sure more than one UCR student thinks UCR is indeed an abominstion to higher education. But there are plenty who think the same of Harvard, Oxford, Berkeley and Hollywood Upstairs Medical College. It's just a random opinion from a random person. Let's say I drove down to UCR with a tape recorder and stopped some students in the street. If one of them told me UCR was "an abomination to higher education", and I tried to put it in the article, who would argue that the quote was appropriate? Using a quote from a public review site has the same effect. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree This anonymous, unverifiable quote needs to go.  --ElKevbo 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree Right along with Szyslak. These websites are not good sources of information. And to make a contrast, look at the reviews for tons of other UC schools. They are ALL mostly negative... obviously from disgruntled students, which exist at every school, everywhere. Not to mention, UCR has better ratings than UCSD and several other UC's on that site, alone. SO, if you're going to use terrible sources... at least do it fairly. Again, this is just another nail in the coffin and goes to show how terribly biased this page has become. Good thing people don't take it seriously. 66.214.118.69 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree with 66.214.118.69. starkt 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree that the quote is irrelevant.  Furthermore, I do not think we should be relying on unreliable Web sources (essentially not much better than a blog).  If Riverside is so bad there should be plenty of decent newspaper articles quoting its students complaining about it.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree As I said, the whole section should go. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Obviously, it goes without saying that information on the alumni giving rate *IS* relevant to an article about a university, which graduates thousands of alumni each year. UCRGrad 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I completely support keeping this information in the article with its current wording.Insert-Belltower 03:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *No problem here. --WHS 07:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I strongly oppose the language in this one.  I have made it clear to UCRGrad that in general, the UC schools (and indeed, state schools) have traditionally had very low alumni giving rates.  Although grads from private schools often mock state school grads b/c of this, there are many reasons why state schools historically do not have very high alumni giving rates.  I think this part of the article needs to be rephrased in a way as to explain that although UC Riverside has one of the lowest alumni giving rates in this country, traditionally, the UC schools as a whole have very low alumni giving rates.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree with Teknosoul on this one, with emphasis on "as currently worded". Some balancing context is needed for this claim. As Teknosoul pointed out, public universities tend to have low giving rates. In addition, a low giving rate isn't always a function of how happy students are, or how good their education was. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were a public university where most graduates become schoolteachers. (For anyone reading this talk page who doesn't know, you have to get a bachelor's degree and about a year of additional preparation to become a teacher, at least in California.) Teachers in the United States don't make much money, just under $40,000 for a first-year teacher in California, where the cost of living can get pretty high. Naturally, someone making that kind of money wouldn't give a huge amount of money to their school. I absolutely loved UC Santa Cruz, but I'm in no position to donate at the moment. And yes, I've chosen a career in teaching, and that's why. :-) szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree The statistics presented in this area do not really bother me but the way they are presented do.  In particular, the leap from "low alumni giving" to "unhappy students" is original research unsupported by the references.  --ElKevbo 22:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree Teknosoul02 is right. 66.214.118.69 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree. Pretty much every public university has a low giving rate -- partly because public universities are perceived as being supported by tax dollars and as not needing private contributions (in fact, most private universities receive tax dollars as well, in the form of government-funded research grants and student financial aid.) It is obvious that the author of this article went on a cherry picking expedition looking for every little bit of information he could find that would cast UCR in a negative light while ignoring or downplaying those things that would cast it in a positive light. The article as it stands is the true "abomination" -- an unconscionable slander against a decent school -- and I'm surprised that we are even having a discussion about this. starkt 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  I concur with starkt.  All UC campuses have serious problems with alumni giving rates because of their embarrassing customer service issues.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree The whole section should go. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retention, Recruitment, and Alumni

message: *Information from StudentsReview.com, specificly the "abomination to higher education" quote, is relevant to the article.
:*--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The quote is concise, to the point, and well-written. UCRGrad 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *The quotation, in the context of the statistic, is representative and therefore appropriate as is. Insert-Belltower 03:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *If a quote from the site is to be added, it should be one that reflects multiple points of view, not just an extreme one.--WHS 07:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *--Amerique 14:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I strongly oppose the inclusion of this quote.  HOWEVER, if we must include a quote from studentsreview.com, it should be one that is more balanced and reflects many points of view.  so I agree with WHS and Amerique on this one.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *The quote should go. Quotes from public review sites, like StudentsReview, RateMyProfessors, Epinions and Yahoo Reviews, have no place in a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. Personally I"m sure more than one UCR student thinks UCR is indeed an abominstion to higher education. But there are plenty who think the same of Harvard, Oxford, Berkeley and Hollywood Upstairs Medical College. It's just a random opinion from a random person. Let's say I drove down to UCR with a tape recorder and stopped some students in the street. If one of them told me UCR was "an abomination to higher education", and I tried to put it in the article, who would argue that the quote was appropriate? Using a quote from a public review site has the same effect. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree This anonymous, unverifiable quote needs to go.  --ElKevbo 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree Right along with Szyslak. These websites are not good sources of information. And to make a contrast, look at the reviews for tons of other UC schools. They are ALL mostly negative... obviously from disgruntled students, which exist at every school, everywhere. Not to mention, UCR has better ratings than UCSD and several other UC's on that site, alone. SO, if you're going to use terrible sources... at least do it fairly. Again, this is just another nail in the coffin and goes to show how terribly biased this page has become. Good thing people don't take it seriously. 66.214.118.69 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree with 66.214.118.69. starkt 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree that the quote is irrelevant.  Furthermore, I do not think we should be relying on unreliable Web sources (essentially not much better than a blog).  If Riverside is so bad there should be plenty of decent newspaper articles quoting its students complaining about it.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree As I said, the whole section should go. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: StudentsReview.com

message: *Information on the alumni giving rate, as currently worded, is relevant to the article.
:*--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Obviously, it goes without saying that information on the alumni giving rate *IS* relevant to an article about a university, which graduates thousands of alumni each year. UCRGrad 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I completely support keeping this information in the article with its current wording.Insert-Belltower 03:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *No problem here. --WHS 07:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I strongly oppose the language in this one.  I have made it clear to UCRGrad that in general, the UC schools (and indeed, state schools) have traditionally had very low alumni giving rates.  Although grads from private schools often mock state school grads b/c of this, there are many reasons why state schools historically do not have very high alumni giving rates.  I think this part of the article needs to be rephrased in a way as to explain that although UC Riverside has one of the lowest alumni giving rates in this country, traditionally, the UC schools as a whole have very low alumni giving rates.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree with Teknosoul on this one, with emphasis on "as currently worded". Some balancing context is needed for this claim. As Teknosoul pointed out, public universities tend to have low giving rates. In addition, a low giving rate isn't always a function of how happy students are, or how good their education was. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were a public university where most graduates become schoolteachers. (For anyone reading this talk page who doesn't know, you have to get a bachelor's degree and about a year of additional preparation to become a teacher, at least in California.) Teachers in the United States don't make much money, just under $40,000 for a first-year teacher in California, where the cost of living can get pretty high. Naturally, someone making that kind of money wouldn't give a huge amount of money to their school. I absolutely loved UC Santa Cruz, but I'm in no position to donate at the moment. And yes, I've chosen a career in teaching, and that's why. :-) szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree The statistics presented in this area do not really bother me but the way they are presented do.  In particular, the leap from "low alumni giving" to "unhappy students" is original research unsupported by the references.  --ElKevbo 22:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree Teknosoul02 is right. 66.214.118.69 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree. Pretty much every public university has a low giving rate -- partly because public universities are perceived as being supported by tax dollars and as not needing private contributions (in fact, most private universities receive tax dollars as well, in the form of government-funded research grants and student financial aid.) It is obvious that the author of this article went on a cherry picking expedition looking for every little bit of information he could find that would cast UCR in a negative light while ignoring or downplaying those things that would cast it in a positive light. The article as it stands is the true "abomination" -- an unconscionable slander against a decent school -- and I'm surprised that we are even having a discussion about this. starkt 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  I concur with starkt.  All UC campuses have serious problems with alumni giving rates because of their embarrassing customer service issues.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree The whole section should go. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni Giving Rate

message: *This section, as currently worded, is biased.
:*--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreeing once again. While it is absolutely true that potential med students from UCR may "have not always been successful", that applies to med students from every university in the country. --WHS 07:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm on the fence on this one, but WHS and Amerique summed it up best.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree with Amerique, WHS and Teknosoul. Yes, it's 100% true that candidates for the Haider/UCLA program haven't always been successful applying to other medical school programs. It's absolutely irrelevant, though. I'm sure many students are also eligible to apply for a transfer to Johns Hopkins if they want. Or they can switch to pre-law and transfer to Berkeley or Harvard. I could go on and on. Does it matter how successful they'd be in such cases? The passage is nothing but personal POV. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree per Amerique and WHS.  I further believe the placement of this article is a bit odd but that's a minor issue unrelated to this survey.  --ElKevbo 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree 100% with Amerique and WHS. I think it has more to do with the individual than their source of undergraduate education, in this example. 66.214.118.69 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree. Getting into medical school is very difficult. It is not a noteworthy fact that some people don't make it. On the contrary, it would be odd if every single UCR applicant got accepted. At the very least, one would suspect grade-inflation. Or wonder how it was that every UCR applicant was able to get in when few if any schools have a 100% success rate. starkt 13:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree The "have not always been successful" part is a weasel term. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *There is absolutely no bias in this section.  Again, the mere mention of an important negative fact (that those not accepted to Thomas Haider have not always been successfull elsewhere) is 100% relevant!!! UCRGrad 02:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *The information in this section is not biased. Insert-Belltower 03:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  As long as the information is true and can be verified, I see nothing wrong with noting that the biomedical program is housed in substandard facilities or that it has serious problems.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Thomas Haider Program in Biomedical Sciences

message: *This section, as currently worded, is biased.
:*Agree  In particular, the statement asserting that "financially, UCR has received sufficient funding to become a comprehensive university, but has lagged behind other UC schools with respect to growth in this area" is completely unsupported by references.  In fact, even if one could find two separate references supporting the two assertions made in that statement, linking them together as cause and effect would be original research.  This is also a very poorly written paragraph.  --ElKevbo 22:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Agree. The funding comparison suggests that there is something wrong with a UC campus that has less funding than other UC campuses. There could be less funding because there are fewer students, fewer graduate students, fewer capital-intensive research programs, etc. This is just a slam against the school, given that no context is provided. starkt 14:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *No bias detected at all. Sorry. UCRGrad 01:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I read absolutely no bias. Insert-Belltower 03:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I don't feel that there is a bias here, but I think the whole Tidal Wave 2 thing either needs to be removed or explained. --WHS 07:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *This part is fair.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *No complaints. There should be some explanation of what Tidal Wave 2 is, but that's not an NPOV issue. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  Not that bad, just explain what Tidal Wave 2 is.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  Unlike the other changes, this section maintans a factual tone; however, the "Tidal Wave 2" needs to be removed or explained. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enrollment

message: *The hate crime information, as currently worded, is biased or irrelevant.
:*--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The on campus hate crime statistics are relevant, but the ones from Riverside County in general absolutely are not. --WHS 07:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *While I agree that this information is important, I think it needs to be phrased a bit more neutrally.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sure, why not discuss on-campus hate crime. We need some comparison to other UCs and national campus hate crime statistics; that would help the reader understand any hate crime problems at UCR in proper context. There's no reason to discuss statistics from Riverside County in general. Remember, it's a big county. According to Google Local, it takes one hour to get from Riverside to Palm Springs, and almost three hours to get to the town of Blythe, near the Arizona border. Both towns lie within Riverside County and would be included in Riverside County crime statistics.  Who is willing to argue that something that happens in Palm Springs or Blythe is relevant to UCR? By comparison, should the UC Santa Barbara article discuss hate crime in Santa Maria, which is an hour and a half away but lies in Santa Barbara County? szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree There are comparitives used in this section ("frequent", "most recent") with no context provided.  The jump from "failed in their crime reporting duties" to "crimes may be underreported" is not only biased but it's also original research; it's possible that crime may have stayed the same or declined.  And I don't really see the relevance of "the most recent crime" in an encyclopedia article.  --ElKevbo 23:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree What Szyslak said. 66.214.118.69 03:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree. There is no reason to mention on or off-campus crime unless there is an unusual problem with it that has been reported in reputable media. The reason I say that is because universities have not provided reliable statistics on crimes against students, so there is no solid statistical basis for saying that one campus is worse than another in this respect. starkt 14:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree. The hate crime information should be limited to the campus alone.  Riverside County is huge.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree Personally, I don't think this section is relevant at all and I would remove it, but I can understand the reasoning behind keeping it. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * The hate crime info is relevant and unbiased, as currently worded.Insert-Belltower 03:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diversity and hate crime

message: *The section on air pollution, as currently worded, is relevant to the article.
:*--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Given that Riverside has the most pollution of ANY major city/county in the NATION (in most studies), I definitely think the section is RELEVANT.  If anything, it should be expanded on! UCRGrad 01:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *This information is important and I actually think that it is okay as is.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I believe this is a very important section to the acticle and it is not biased.Insert-Belltower 18:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'll have to disagree with WHS on this one. There's a significant difference between the 909 section and the air pollution section. Stereotypes about "white supremacists and cows" really have no bearing on UCR as a school, or on the student experience. But the air quality problem in Riverside does. It has very real effects on health and overall quality of life. I grew up in the heavily polluted San Fernando Valley. Believe me, it's no fun. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * This is the only negative I agree on thus far, because it actually has reliable sources AND all the sources on this topic say the same thing AND they are not from disgruntled students who failed, just like at any other university. They are also not from websites such as urbandictionary.com and studentreview.com, which frankly, are a big joke. 66.214.118.69 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree. I agree that UCR has a serious air pollution problem and that this seriously affects quality of life at the campus.  --Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *It's irrelevant, for much of the reasons I've cited for the 909 topic.--WHS 07:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * The question is whether the section is irrelevant as currently worded. Yes, it is irrelevant as currently worded. Air pollution is a serious problem in Riverside, but it's not enough of a problem to merit lengthy treatment. It's not the university's "fault" that it is located in a polluted area. This article is about the university, not Riverside's air pollution. So, while the pollution should be mentioned and expanded upon somewhat, it shouldn't be discussed at length the way it is in this article. starkt 14:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Weak Agree. Unlike the silly "909 Stigma" section, there's real, valid and concrete concerns here.  However, the phrase about the pollution influencing administrative policy has got to go. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said the same thing a few months ago and I *swear* there was a UCR document supporting that claim.  Maybe I'm misrembering things but I don't know why I would misremember something odd like that...  --ElKevbo 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Severe Air Pollution

message: *Information in the history section is relevant to this article.
:*-- I approve the the information, but I would prefer it to be more concise.Insert-Belltower 04:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm concurring with Insert-Belltower. While I undoubtedly appreciate the work Amerique has invested in the section, it seems a little long-winded to me. --WHS 07:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *--Amerique 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *--The information is definitely relevant, but WAY TOO LONG.  I don't think anybody's going to read the HISTORY section, when it takes up a third of the article.  It needs to be more concise, for sure. UCRGrad 16:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *This part is pretty fair, though perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit.  Teknosoul02 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *This section is very informative and comprehensive. A few minor details could be dispensed with; that would help make it more concise and manageable. Overall, few complaints here. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree Could use some work, but generally pretty good and informative.  --ElKevbo 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agree. starkt 14:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree. The section is relevant but is currently too long.--Coolcaesar 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree hard to argue otherwise. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: While I appreciate everyone's contributions to the survey, I have to point out that the results are not reliable and generalizable, and are not valid for drawing conclusions.  Fortunately, the survey does let us know where people stand on various sections of the article, so we need not waste time arguing over sections that nobody has problems with.  Major flaws that preclude using survey results are as follows:
#The sample is not random.  In fact, ALL parties who have responded so far are KNOWN to be partisaned.  For crying out loud, the person who WROTE the survey even submitted her own survey responses.  Her advocate submitted results.  In fact, in most (if not all cases), Amerique went to individual user pages and ASKED people to take the survey - obviously, she only recruited editors whom she knew would vote in her favor.  In order for us to understand how neutral third parties see the article, ALL samples that are derived from "interested parties" should be eliminated (especially the anonymous IP user who has already vandalized this article several times).  
#The survey is not BLINDED.  It goes without saying that if people can read how others have voted, it influences their own opinions.  It also didn't help that Amerique provided a "sample vote" in her favor to kick things off.
#The survey questions "lead" the respondent to answer in Amerique's favor.  That is, by asking whether or not a section is biased, it favors the affirmative-response.  The reason is that even if a respondant felt that there was perhaps one single word that made a segment biased, he/she would respond in the "biased" area because there is no option for a middle-ground.  That is, scale of 0-5 (0 = unbiased, 5=very biased).  Thus, the survey questions are constructed such that it favors the affirmative-respons (in this case, that a section is biased or irrelevant). 
#There is no mechanism by which we can ensure there has been no "double-voting."  That is, we cannot guarantee that there are no sockpuppets in Amerique's camp.  This is especially relevant, since one of the voters came from an anonymous IP address. 
#The sample size is too small.  Given that we have less than ten respondants and binary responses (agree/disagree), we would require far more data to conduct any type of statistical test.  In the absence of statistical analysis, a survey is not valid for drawing conclusions.
These are all grounds for dismissing survey results.  I trust that those of you who have scientific training are aware of these fatal flaws and will concede this point.  I also trust that those of you who do not will either learn about this subject or refrain from commenting.  Thanks. UCRGrad 03:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's something of a straw poll and I'm sure that although you disagree with the views being expressed no one views it as scientific or binding.  It's merely a tool to help get outside opinion and compare/contrast that with the opinions of some editors who have worked on or followed this article for some time.  --ElKevbo 12:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with ElKevbo. It's impossible and unreasonable to expect pure scientific correctness in a Wikipedia survey. If we held anything to that standard, nothing would get done around here. In addition, because the survey is not intended to be binding in any way, there's nothing to "admit" or "dismiss". szyslak (t, c, e) 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As stated previously, the only useful data the survey provides is the ability for people to state their opinions about certain sections of the article and to allow us to avoid discussing areas that are not in contention.  As the survey stands, it is not possible to conclude things like "most people would find XYZ section biased," or something ridiculous like "based on the survey, XYZ section IS biased."  This is what I mean. UCRGrad 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course the survey data is "admissible" as a casual indication of what interested people think. The opinions given and their reasonableness or lack thereof are what should count. I hope that all of this can be submitted to some kind of arbitration so that we can finally get a decent article on UCR. starkt 14:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: UCGrad, the purpose of this straw poll is to get an idea of what everybody thinks of this UCR article.  I think it represents a very strong indication that most, if not all, other wiki users agree that the article itself is very much biased against Riverside.  Honestly, I see this article as nothing more than a subtle slam of Riverside.  I understand your need to present information about Riverside and I will stipulate that Riverside does not have the best academic reputation in California.  but this article itself--which you have written and edited most of--is very one-sided and paints Riverside in a very ugly light.  Most of us are willing to work things out and make this article more neutral and objectie, but you have to play your part and be willing to listen, and maybe even put aside your own emotions and perhaps come to some kinda compromise.  Best, Teknosoul02 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Teknosoul, the survey does nothing of what you speak of.  The methodology is so severely compromised that it is not possible to "get an idea of what everybody thinks" for the reasons outlined very carefully above.  At most, the survey allows a skewed sample of individuals who are already against the article to express their dissatisfaction with certain areas of the article.  As I have stated before, I am always willing to discuss the article in a reasonable manner.  If you can provide valid justifications for your proposed changes and address counterarguments sufficiently, then of course we can all agree to changes!  UCRGrad 03:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I find hilarious about this obsession with consensus is that you and I-B are the only people who are agreeing with keeping the article as is to begin with! Danny Lilithborne 03:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Above Survey Data is NOT Admissable