Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about University of California, Riverside. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Although I agree that this article is not written from neutral point of view, whoever puts up the dispute tag needs to propose specific changes to make the article neutral. For now I'm putting up a {{POV-check}} tag for others to check the neutrality of this article. AucamanTalk 11:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Aucaman. In order to maintain the NPOV tag, there needs to be an explanation of why it belongs there. This has to be something more substantial than "my gut feeling is that the article is biased." Otherwise, I suggest that we remove the tag, because I think the article has made significant improvements. UCRGrad 20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Also with regard to the addition: "undergraduate education at UCR has produced an eventual Nobel prize winner," I'd like to point out that literally, this statement is not entirely correct. It is purely speculative to state that the undergrad education produced a Nobel prize winner. That is to say, how can we know what contribution this man's undergrad education had towards his eventual Nobel prize-winning research? Probably very little, since nobel-prize-level research is unlikely to be done at the college level. In all likelihood, this type of work was done while he was an MIT professor or perhaps while he was a Ph.D. student at Harvard. I have edited the statement to make it more accurate. UCRGrad 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I motion to remove the tag ASAP. Insert-Belltower 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think you and others have had more than enough time to state what is so "biased" about this article...weeks, in fact. All I've been reading over the past month or so have been gripes about a sentence here or there -- NOBODY has really explained why they believe the article is biased. Therefore, I am removing the tag JUSTIFIABLY, until somebody explains why this article truly violates NPOV. Furthermore, if you are up to the challenge, I would expect you to differentiate between true bias and the conveyance of negative facts (only the first of which is unacceptable). Thanks. UCRGrad 03:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe it was said that a list would be provided. If you could show a little more patience, I am sure that a much better debate can be held on both sides. In any case, the article is still hotly disputed, and questions on the status of the NPOV have been raised. Removing the tag does a disservice to all who read the article. --jahamal 03:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe I said that several weeks have passed and NOBODY has really explained why they believe the article is biased. With regard to "hotly disputed," all I've seen for the past few weeks has been concerns over a few sentences here and there. Debates have arisen only over a few sentences, or in one case, the inclusion of a harmless photo. In all fairness, the NPOV tag should be affixed ONLY IF AND WHEN someone actually explains WHY it should be there. UCRGrad 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree 100%. I will remove the NPOV tag until someone explains why this article requires it. Insert-Belltower 20:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Placing an NPOV tag without actually explaining WHY the article does not meet neutral point of view standards is not acceptable. Although many people have "claimed" that the explanation is all of the discussion, it is not. I've skimmed over it again. Basically, the TALK page is riddled with:
a) accusations of bias. i.e. statements that a person believes the article is BIASED. it ends with this. There is no explanation as to why. Unfortunately, the mere opinion that an article is biased, is not sufficient grounds to place that NPOV tag up.
b) LONG debates over a few sentences here and there. A few sentences do not constitute the level of bias that warrants the NPOV tag, even if I were to stipulate that these sentences introduced biased (which I don't).
Thus, without an explanation of why this article is biased (again, there has not been one yet), the NPOV tag does not belong. UCRGrad 23:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not intend to get intensively involved in the neutral:non-neutral debate, however, there are several ways in which this article could be improved. These are only suggestions immediately off the top of my head and in no order of importance:
Amerique, you make an excellent point that perhaps UCR was handicapped in that it it was not originally started in an "area with either larger population or idyllic location, more money, or some combination." I don't dispute that this is possible. However, the purpose of the wikipedia article isn't really to make "excuses" as to why UCR didn't seem to flourish (at least in terms of financial resources) like the other schools. If you have a reference, I'd definitely throw this information in...but our first obligation is to provide relevant facts about UCR, especially in areas such as academics, reputation, student statistics, and other relevant data that is uniformly included in college publications. That is to say, regardless of whether UCR was handicapped by its location, climate, or whatever, if it indeed does have the lowest peer assessment score, selectivity rank, and overall ranking in the UC system according to US News Report, I don't see any way that we can justifiably remove this information - the facts need to be stated...and to be honest, there really isn't any better way to state these facts without introducing POSITIVE bias or inaccuracy (unless you can think of a way). In fact, these are some of the more important indicators of school caliber...if anything, this information should be given MORE focus than it has now.
Regardless, I think it's great that you've made some suggestions to improve the article, and it'd be awesome if you added in some of the things you mentioned (referenced, of course). I wish some of the other detractors of this article would make similar positive suggestions rather than complain about "this and that," but not have any input for improvement. UCRGrad 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Nicely put, I also have problems with three of the pictures featured in the article. 1) The shot of the UV towers. -The UV Tower is not affiliated with UCR and is and off campus apartment complex. I think a picture of the dorms, be it lothian, pentland,of A&I would be better. 2)The shot of the student playing DDR is not very represenitive UCR student life. I think a shot of the commons around lunch time would be better, since that is how most students use commons. Most do not play in the small and limited arcade. 3) The picture of the sorority girl (Yes I know this is a heated topic, but I call for a compromise and get a better shot of greek life) My problem with this shot is that it is just A sororitty girl. Greek life is about communities of people and friends, a shot of the coucches and letters set up beneath the bell tower almost every day would be much better representation of greek life. I have not found any pictures to replace these with, and even if I did I would not know how to go about getting them up, but I can just take my digital camera on campus and get a few shots I could figure it out. What say we to this? --jahamal 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It is my continued assertion that many facts and allegations have been handpicked to cast a negative light on UCR. It has been done deftly and thus is difficult to prove in some ways. Nevertheless, below are my specific questions and concerns:
I don't have a problem with "national" or "comprehensive." Insert-Belltower 05:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The "financial resources" fact is unique to UCR and should be mentioned. Insert-Belltower 05:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry UCRGrad, but you're full of it. I found some information on Google, and it's clearly obvious that you DO have an agenda: you are attempting, through rather subtle means, to smear UC Riverside. I think that what you are doing is trying to damage UC Riverside's name and/or trying to make those associated with UC Riverside feel bad about themselves.
Look at this:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=160432 "[UC Riverside's] not worth it. Your life, your education, and 4 years of your life are not worth the savings. Go somewhere else.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/archive/index.php/t-149891-p-2.html
"UCRGrad, why did you stay all four years?"
Cuz I was dumb.
"i made a horrible decision after highschool and ended up at R, but i'm trying to get the hell out."
You're not alone. 15% of UCR freshmen LEAVE after 1 year. That's 1 in 8. I wish you the best of luck getting out of Riverside.
"Oh, you have to look at UCOP data to get that. UCR has the highest percentage of students coming from low academic performance index high schools in the UC System. These are the students who took 1 AP in high school and scored a "3," and posted the results on their fridge, to the glee of their parents who are so proud that they will be going to a UC school instead of selling dope down the street like the rest of the family.
"I forget who wrote this, and I think it's a little ****-poor, but it sums it up kinda well: "Graduating at the top of your UCR class is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
UCRGrad is either some UCLA/USC/Berkeley troll trying to damage UC Riverside's reputation ... or he is a truly disgruntled UC Riverside alum. Seems UCRGrad claims to be the latter, but you are not doing yourself or anybody else any good with these kinds of comments you made on the collegeconfidential page. Wikipedia is suppose to provide OBJECTIVE information; it's clear that you are trying to give UC Riverside a negative slant. And based on the comments I found on collegeconfidential, that is CLEARLY your agenda. Teknosoul02 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems you are trying to blame all of your life's struggles on your UC Riverside degree. That's really pathetic; I know TONS of UCLA grads who are struggling through life. And even THEY don't hate their alma mater to the degree of vitriol you seem to have towards Riverside. Teknosoul02 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. I do NOT HATE UC Riverside. If there is someone on another forum who shares the same name "UCRGrad," it is purely by coincidence, although I will acknowledge that I am familiar with some of threads you have excerpted. All of my contributions on Wikipedia have been well-supported, referenced, and are designed to provide an informative and accurate depiction of the campus. As always, if you have a concern about any segment of the article, you should post them here. If you have more conspiracy theories, ad hominems, and baseless accusations, you should just well, keep them to yourself. Thanks. UCRGrad 05:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You claim that you "do NOT HATE" UC Riverside, yet you have mentioned numerous times about how unhappy UC Riverside students are and how so many of them leave campus during the weekend. You also point out the Riverside's high attrition rate, especially after the students' first year. You also emphasize that UC Riverside has the lowest alumni giving rate in the nation (according to you), and that you attribute this to the vast majority of UC Riverside alumni being completely disgruntled and bitter towards their alma mater. At one point in this discussion page, you even admit that you refuse to donate back to your alma mater (if this is indeed your alma mater, and you're not some UCLA/USC/Berkeley troll in disguise) and that you didn't like the place at all!
A couple of sections in this article make me speculate that you are trying to sully Riverside's reputation.
1.) The constant reference that UC Riverside has "no Nobel Laureates" on its faculty. WHO GIVES A F$#% whether Riverside has any Nobel Laureates. Several universities ranked in the Top 50 have NO NOBEL LAUREATES on their faculty. And FOUR (Santa Cruz, Davis, Merced, and Riverside) out of 9 UC campuses have NO NOBEL LAUREATES on their faculty. Five out of 9 hardly constitutes "most". Why do you have to feel that UC Riverside having no Nobel Laureates serve as a focal point? All you are doing is trying to sabotage Riverside and strongly infer that because of Riverside having no Nobel Laureates, it automatically offers an inferior education.
2.) Why the constant comparison to other UC schools? Riverside should be judged on its own merits, and should not be compared to the other UC schools. Are you implying that UC Riverside is a stain to the UC system? (Admittedly, this is the impression I got from a lot of people when the topic of UC Riverside is brought up.)
3.) On this article, you wrote: "Naturally, 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)." Where's the proof? Just b/c some professor "estimates" this statistic, doesn't mean its true. This part should be deleted. It's completely meaningless and there are no real statistics to back this up. This is nothing more than a professor throwing this percentage out without actual evidence.
4.) I think you should just leave the stats alone as that. You should not say "UC Riverside has the lowest blah blah blah..." Applicants can judge the statistics on their own merit without your constant "UC Riverside *sucks* because it has the lowest standards, blah blah blah..."
5.) On this article, you wrote: "95% of UCR alumni do not donate back to their alma mater, based on an alumni giving rate of 5%, the lowest alumni giving rate of any national university[23][26]. In comparison, the rate at UCLA and UC Davis are 3-times and 2-times as high, respectively. This low giving ratio may be a function of low student happiness. According to The Princeton Review's 2004 publication of "Best 351 College Rankings", UC Riverside ranked #12 nationwide for "Least Happy Students.". Most state universities (even top notch ones) have very low alumni giving rates. UCLA's 15% alumni giving rate isn't exactly something to be proud of, you know. WOW, UCLA's 15% alumni giving rate kicks a$$! Maybe we should put this statistic on UCLA's Wikipedia page. UCLA students are so happy about their alma mater that they donate back to their school at the exceptional rate of 15%! Let's celebrate!
And where did you come up with the correlation of low alumni giving rate to low student happiness? I'm guessing it's from your own personal experience of this school.
6.) On this article, you wrote: "The Inland Empire area is sometimes referred to as "The 909," which makes reference to the region's former primary area code but also carries a negative association with trailer parks, white supremacists, and cows. The region has also been the subject of frequent mockery by a variety of websites, television shows, radio stations, and bumper stickers[43]. Despite the 2004 prefix change to "951," the nickname remains in use[44]."
I see that you actually used "Urban Dictionary" as a source for this article (footnote 44). LOL! Urban Dictionary is hardly something I'd consider to be a verifiable source...
Anyway, you claim that you have never posted on collegeconfidential and that the UCRGrad there just happens to be someone else. Bullocks. The UCRGrad who posts on collegeconfidential has similar writing styles to yours, and even uses the same statistics you constantly emphasize on this article (e.g., 1 out of 8 freshmen permenantly leave UC Riverside, UC Riverside has the lowest blah blah blah). His writing style and constant use of references from this article makes it NOT a mere coincidence that he "shares" the same name as yours.
And since you are such an "expert" on UC Riverside, let me ask you: If 1 out of 8 freshmen leave UC Riverside after their first year, where do they go? Do most of them attempt to transfer to "better" schools? Or is this because the majority of them are just idiots and couldn't handle college work at all? Teknosoul02 12:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
"::I did not want to add comparison data to other UCLA or any other UC's for alumni giving. Somebody else in your camp demanded that this be added and I did not object. UCRGrad 15:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)"
Wait a minute, you seem to have no problems comparing Riverside to the rest of the UCs when it casts Riverside in a bad light, yet when it turns out that UC Riverside alumni giving rate isn't so dismal (especially since the "much better" UCs don't have THAT much higher alumni giving rates), you didn't want to make that comparison? You constantly compared UC Riverside to the other UCs and pointed out how UC is dead last in all the relevant categories (academics, student quality life and happiness, etc.), but you didn't want to add comparison data of Riverside's alumni giving rate to the other UCs? Funny, it's a bit hypocritical, no? Also, do you have any actualy PROOF that UC Riverside's alumni giving rate is the lowest in the country? I don't see any outside sources referencing this.
Also, in regards to the alumni giving rate, there's a constant emphasis that UC ranks "dead last" nationally in alumni giving rate (which you seem to like to point out in this article). I guess you'd rather say that then point out that UC Riverside's alumni giving rate is only marginally worse than the much more "prestigious" UCLA's (a school I'm assuming you wish to this day you could get in and you blame your bitterness in life on being rejected from that school and having to go to the "worse" UC in the nation according to you and what you've written in this article).
Also, since you accused me of using profanity the last time, let me make it clear: it's irrevelant to point out that UC Riverside has "no nobel laureates" on its faculty. Again, several Top 50 universities (for example, BC, Georgia Tech) do not have any Nobel Laureates and those schools seem to be doing fine. Should we go to the wikipedia pages of Boston College and Georgia Tech and point out that "unlike most Top 50 institutions in the US News rankings, Boston College and Georgia Tech have no Nobel Laureates on its faculty". Also, only 5 out of 9 UC schools have nobel Laureates. That hardly constitutes "most". That is my only point.
Thanks. Teknosoul02 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
":::Wait, make up your mind. First, you had a problme with me comparing the alumni giving rate of UCR to UCLA. Now that you find out that I wasn't the one who wanted to include it, you now have a problem with me NOT wanting to make the comparison. Briefly, UCR's rate is dismal - it's LAST in the nation (and yes it is appropriately cited) and it's 2-3x LOWER than other UC's. I really don't see what else there is to say about this. UCRGrad 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)"
No, the way I see it, you originally did not want to compare the alumni giving rate of Riverside to UCLA b/c in reality, UCLA's alumni giving rate isn't all that much higher. 15% (UCLA's highly successful alumni giving rate ... apparently) compared to 5% (UC Riverside's abysmal alumni giving rate ... apparently) shows that there IS a marginal difference between the two schools. We are not talking about 30% compared to 5%. Instead, we are talking about a 10% difference. Yet, on the other hand, you have chosen to phrase this in a way (saying that UCLA's alumni giving rate is three times higher than Riverside's) in order to make Riverside look bad. There is no way around this; it's obvious you did NOT want to include the comparison, but when you were forced to, you tried to make the comparison in a way to make Riverside look as bad as possible. 15% compared to 5% isn't a major difference, but you tried to phrase it in a way (UCLA's alumni giving rate is three times as successful as Riverside's) to try and make Riverside and it's alumni feel bad about themselves.
":::a) I never used the term "dead last.""
Haven't you constantly referred Riverside's alumni giving rate as last in the nation?
":I have already addressed ad nauseum why it IS relevant to include the absence of nobel laureates at UCR - I refer you to the discussion above as well as the archived TALK page. I have changed "most" to "the majority" to reflect your concern about wording. Thanks. UCRGrad 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC"
Fair enough, but I still disagree that the whole "Riverside has no Nobel Laureates on its faculty" should be included. I have read the reasons for you including this--and I still think it doesn't really matter. Teknosoul02 05:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Studentsreview.com is being refernced on wikipedia shows that this article has little credibility. It's obviously a blatant attempt to cast a bad impression on UC Riverside. The studentsreview.com survey MUST be removed--it only adds credence that this article has a strong negative POV. Teknosoul02 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As further evidence that UCRGrad has an agenda to smear UC Riverside, check out this dialogue from this very own discussion page:
"I fail to see how "malintent" was demonstrated by including this information about the campus. If you recall, there were numerous sources that supported the name "UC Retards" as a nickname, however, none of them were stringent enough by WP standards, and we were unable to use them. By not acknowledging that "UC Retards" is a common expansion of the acronym "UCR," you are either a) exceedingly biased, or b) not sufficiently familiar with the campus to be an editor of this article. UCRGrad 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)"
The fact that UCRGrad INSISTED on calling UC Riverside students "UC Retards" shows that he obviously is trying to sabotage this school's reputation in general. Luckily, UCRGrad has the common sense to realize that xoxohth, collegeconfidential, and studentsreview do not count as "legitimate" sources. And who acknowledges that UC Retards is a common expansion of the UCR antonym? Why UCLA/Berkeley/USC TROLLS of course!! But why were you so bitter about your experiences at UC Riverside to the point that you were willing to call yourself a "UC Retard" since you actually graduated from this proud instituion that you so despise?
Exactly. And as further proof, reading this today was the first time I have ever heard of this UC Retards thing... and I spent four years there. 66.214.118.69 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
And further, since you earlier claim that UCRGrad on the collegeconfidential site is not the same UCRGrad as you, the posts appear to be au contraire:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/archive/index.php/t-149891-p-3.html
"Same name, different guy. Although I agree with everything UCRGrad has written on Wiki."
"UCRGrad is the one who hijacked the wiki article."
Then again, I'm not exactly a big collegeconfidential fan seeing that the UC Riverside message boards there are infested with bitter UCLA/Berkeley/USC trolls who are trying to make UC Riverside grads feel inferior about themselves.
I think a description of the surrounding area is 100% pertinent to "student life." Are you suggesting that students are not exposed to the surrounding area? UCRGrad 02:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, there's a boatload of references on "the 909." The statement in the article is a "nice" version of what "The 909" actually refers to. I'll look for a good reference. UCRGrad 02:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
There is already a citation there, but more can be found. Insert-Belltower 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
At any rate, NONE of your objections support your claim that the article does not meet NPOV standards. So far, you've done the following: a) request definition of "national university" - this is not even related to bias
b) objected to inclusion of "lack of Nobel laureates" - but I have addressed all of your arguments previously, and you've not presented any new ones; either way, I don't see how this is related to bias either
c) you've asked a lot of questions about what typical medical education is, but you clearly have no clue in this area - I've asked you not to edit portions of the article you are not familiar with; either way, I've explained my reasons, and there is nothing biased about mentioning buildings that are subpar (especially since we already mention a few notable buildings on campus in a very positive light)
d) you have a problem with mention of racism - however, these facts are well-referenced, and you have yet to disprove any of them or demonstrate that it is irrelvant.
e) you argued that the statement about "the 909" lacked citation or evidence, even though it was already referenced
f) you objected to the word "lacking" in front of football team, and it was changed.
To summarize, you've only made a few technical and unsupported objections to the article. EVEN IF all of your points of contention were correct (which I don't believe they are), there STILL would not be enough "bias" in total to call this article NPOV. Therefore, I am removing the tag, but will continue to work with you on these minor issues. UCRGrad 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the best way to sum up my point of view is that there is a definite negative connotation to this article. I edit and watch over several university article in Wikipedia and this is the only example of *systematic* negative bias I have ever encountered.
I believe others share my point of view and I encourage them to add points of contention. I welcome all discussion of these and other topics relevant to this article. --ElKevbo 18:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
i'm begining to gather references for a new section on UCR's campus & environment. This section will incorporate the info already in the Student Life section in the paragraph begining "On the other side of California State Route 60..." and the paragraph on smog. I will only edit this material to the extent I have to make it work within the new section. Also, the entry on KUCR will be moved to Student life, and eventually expanded. if you have any insights or issues with any of this let me know.--Amerique 16:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Opps, I tried archiving earlier discussions and accidentially cut off the preceding argument and my own postings. Sorry about that. In any case, I'm trying to get the discussion here off to a fresh start on improving the article. To that effect, I've created a new section on the UCR campus and environment, have added critical contextual information to history, and have created headers for various sections to clarify content and facilitate organization. I've already added most of what I wanted in terms of new content, but will continue editing to make the UCR article a featured article on wikipedia.--Amerique 20:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It is entirely possible to bring the UCR article up to featured status. For a comparable model, check out the article on Michigan State University. Note how this article handles negative information graciously and as a matter of fact in examples such as:
No UC article has ever achieved featured status on wikipedia. With UCR, the task should be easy, as there is less history to work with and the size of the campus in all its dimensions would make it easier to write a comprehensive article. If we refocus the collective energy that goes into these talk pages to the article, the UCR article could easily become the shining jewel of the UC articles before the end of summer.
Towards that goal, I'll be focusing next week on contextualizing the information contained in "Student life" on diversity-related issues, and on anything else i happen to find good references for.--Amerique 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Bold text
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.