Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 3

User:TheRegicider's concerns

Academics

What students not selected for the Thomas Haider program do isn't exactly relevant. It's like saying "While most UCLA students qualify for great grad schools, some actually end up going to bad ones." The sole purpose of that remark is to make the school look bad. Lastly, the data doesn't even substantiate it. The link just sends you to mdapplicants.com, it doesn't actually show the statistics. Again, that's like putting nothing more than "The Bible" in a bibliography. Until the data is actually presented that stat is not verified.

--Posted by Aucaman^Talk 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the statement is to simply convey facts, not to bringforth a bias viewpoint with the purpose of demeaning the school. Your bad parallel example regarding UCLA graduates fails because it puts emphasis on a negative point that could be made about ANY school, and if it was actually said in an article about UCLA, it would represent a bias. It is true that out of the total number of graduates of any school some will go to "bad ones." In contrast, the statement in the UCR article are appropriate because it is specific to that paricular program and group of students, thus it is an imporant and relevant point to make. We can work on the making the link more specific, if necessary. Insert-Belltower 02:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think AUCAMAN is familiar with the the important of med school admissions. The fact is, a proportion of science majors are actually premed. (non-science majors are usually out of touch with the premed thing) Every premed knows how difficult it is to get into medical school, and one of the important indicators they use is how well do premeds applying from their institution do. They look at where past graduates have gotten interviews at and where they ultimately were admitted to. Medschool admission is more competitive than law school, and it's much more stressful than college admissions. The reality is that UCR students don't fare well when applying to med school. There is no bias. The best source available (so far) is from MDApplicants.com which allows a simple search of UCR applicant data, but it does not permit linking to these results. However, wikipedia requires VERIFIABILITY, not necessary "LINKABILITY." So this information stands. AND yes, it's pertinent. If only 24 students are selected for UCR/UCLA, then it BEGS the question, "what happens to the hundreds of other premeds!!?" UCRGrad 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Why are you bold-facing this? And I did not originally write these. I'm quoting User:TheRegicider's comments above. Aucaman^Talk 03:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see where you wrote that you were quoting TheRegicider. In that case, my responses were directed at him. THanks. UCRGrad 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Removed: "but are frequently limited to D.O. and third-tier programs, ....^[1]". Statement links to the homepage -- # ^ "MDApplicants.com (UC Riverside data)". Retrieved March 31, 2006.)... No UCR profile on MDApplicants.com exists and information is not verifiable. In addition, UCRGrad begs the question "what happens to the hundreds of other premeds!!?" I contend that there were less than 100 applicants last year and that the rate of acceptance is higher at UCR than nationally. (I believe the number of applicants is around 60, but I could be wrong). I believe they are expected to receive between 100 and 200 applications in this upcoming application cycle. Regardless, none of this information is pertinent to the article, just an FYI that saying "hundreds" of students apply is a misinformed exaggertion. Pimpclinton 05:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Univeristy of Chinest Refugees"

The school's nickname is "Univeristy of Chinest Refugees?" Not only is that incredibily offensive, it's not even a nickname anyone uses. Show me where the UCSB wiki article mentions its nickname of "U Can Study Boozed" or "Univeristy of Casual Sex and Beer." IT DOESN'T. That's the fourth nickname that's been put up on this article, making it clear that the authors are just trying to come up with things that are offensive, not true.

--Posted by Aucaman^Talk 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames: I think that is completely appropriate to mention common school nicknames, this has already been discussed thoroughly on this board. Additionally, just because another UC's Wiki page doesn't have a common name associated with it shouldn't make it an issue of this article. Additionally, they are not explicity offensive, perhaps they are only offensive to you. Insert-Belltower 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

<--- well whoever thinks that nickname is not offensive is a piece of sh** ignorant a** hole. keep in mind the previous statement is not explicitly offensive, perhaps only to those who feel it is directed toward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UcrGraduate (talk • contribs)

While the nickname may or may not be offensive, yours is certainly uncivil. Please refer to WP:CIV. Calwatch 04:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, tifego, neither Insert-Belltower nor myself (UCRGrad) inserted that nickname into the article... If there any admins here, this user is obviously not contributing in a constructive manner here...I'm wondering if there's any action we can take?UCRGrad 03:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The action you can take is to kindly ignore it. Actually, I think you (and possibly Calwatch) are missing the irony in his statement that he used to illustrate his point. His point was that this nickname, and "UC Rejects" and the others, are offensive nicknames, and that it is ridiculous to assert otherwise as Insert-Belltower did. He is undoubtedly correct about that. Also, both you and Insert-Belltower put "UC Rejects" into the article many times over, and you even added obviously-false references to back it up. Anyway, they aren't in the article now, so I won't continue about that. –Tifego^(t) _{04:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

I was referring to UC Rejects when I posted my original reply, and then cut and pasted it down here. I would agree with the removal of the Chinese Refugees name. As UCRGrad say, neither he nor I inserted it.

Insert-Belltower 04:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not add the Chinese Refugees nickname. I agree that it is not commonly used. However, UC Rejects IS a common nickname, and I need to find a citation that meets minimum standards here. I will not use the wiki "backronyms" article as a source, but I will find another one. UCRGrad 03:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Based on this large student body, this has earned UCR the nickname of "University of Chinese Refugees"[10]. <---- UC Berkeley also earned the nickname of University of Chinese Boys. What, never heard of it? Well it's cause I just made it up, probably what you just did. Take this off. Extremely offensive, unfounded, and just plain stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UcrGraduate (talk • contribs)

The UCR reference has been cited, and is not just a "made-up."

Insert-Belltower 02:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

But it's a self reference, and irrelevant to the article. There are no references in Nexis to "UC Rejects". Thus, it is just a gratuitous cheap shot. Calwatch 03:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

US News and Review Stats

As of right now, a user has to pay to view them. Given certain patterns of dishonesty, how can we trust these are real?

--Posted by Aucaman^Talk 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because you have to pay for information them does not make it an invalid source. Using your logic, a researcher wouldn't be able to cite journal articles because most publishers, with a few exceptions, require a paid subscription, either for paper or online copies. If you don't believe me, go to www.pubmed.com and enter in "CANCER" in the search, then try to download one of the journal articles that comes up.

I am offended that you would imply that I am being dishonest.

This aside, you do have free access to the US News at a public library where the US News magazine is usually on file.

Insert-Belltower 02:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

US News and World Report is freely available at your local library. I'm not sure what the big concern is here. This is a completely invalid and irrelevant argument here. This conversation will go a lot easier for everyone if you would refrain from making arguments that you KNOW are lame. Seriously. UCRGrad 03:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Please no name calling. I do agree with UCRGrad, though, that just because a source is in printed form or requires payment does not remove its legitimacy. Calwatch 03:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

StudentsReview.com

StudentsReview.com: I posted this earlier, but I'll do it again. They quote StudentsReview.com whose unreliability is proven on the front page, when it estimates the school's average ACT score is a 14. How can you honestly tell me that this is non-bias when it just quotes random negative comments from a messageboard? You can't even verify that these people aren't quoting themselves. It's clearly against the rules to cite non-verifiable sources.Of course they don't site the postive reviews like this one: "My overall take on the campus was a good one, the education I received I use everyday at my job. My roommate and I were hired before we graduated from UCR and both received a signing bonus along with a relocation package." The placement of this quote so clearly indicated bias it's not even funny. If we are going to get into the business of quoting random internet users, we must do it evenly. The opinion of a single unverifable poster? That cannot be consider NPOV.

--Posted by Aucaman^Talk 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

students surveyed on StudentsReview.com would not return to UCR if given the choice, with one student reviewer calling the campus "an absolute abomination." <--- how is this possibly not subjective? not only are you quoting a WEBSITE, you are using ONE student's OPINION. i happened to take a look at your "source" and you failed to mention that the sample size was 48 students. i'm sure that changes things a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.118.98 (talk • contribs)

I doubt PR's sample size return from UC Riverside was much bigger. There were a lot of negative comments on StudentsReview..."an absolute abomination" pretty much sums them up. However, I don't have a problem with removing that one in particular, only because quotes from individual users does not Wiki's policies...On the other hand, the survey conducted by StudentsReview.com is perfectly acceptable. It's not ideal, and it's not rigorous, but it's acceptable as verifiable information. UCRGrad 03:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

StudentsReview.com barely skirts acceptability of WP:V. A student newspaper or quotes from a Fiske's Guide or Yale Daily News Guide would be much better. Calwatch 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

UV Theater

UV Theater. It's used because of a "due to lower patronage by moviegoers"? Ummmm. That's just unnecessary negativity. ALL MOVIE THEATRES HAVE LOW PATRONAGE AT 9 IN THE MORNING. The author purposely uses that language to imply that there is something wrong with the theaters, when in reality, it's a great relationship all around. The lin adds NOTHING to the article except for further negativity and bias.

--Posted by Aucaman^Talk 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have enought information to call the statement "that all theaters have a lower patronage of moviegoers at 9 in the morning" negative. In this case, this statement is explaining why the UV is one for classes in the morning. Nevertheless, I would be open to a rewording of the statement, if you wish.

Insert-Belltower 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing the conclusion would work. It could also be spun as an innovative joint use project for the university. You don't know either way, unless you can find an article or document as to the agreement the school made with the movie theater, or why it was purchased. Calwatch 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the big hoo-hah is here. I'm not sure what kind of magical imagery you're coming up with, but it's a simple fact: patronage is SO low at the UV theater, that they don't lose any money by just shutting down and letting UCR have its lectures there. There's nothing wrong with doing that, it's just a bit unusual, and it's clearly because patronage is low. Do you think if enough customers came in to make a good profit that they'd kick them out and have classes instead?? NO WAY! ...however, to make the logical leap and say "oh that's bias, that's bias" is propesterous. UCRGrad 03:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

Who owns the theater? How much does UCR pay the theater? Nowadays, a lot of theaters don't even operate before 4 PM anyway, because the cost of running matinees compared with ticket take is so low. Without understanding the joint use agreement between the owners and the university (or why the university decided to build a movie theater), we don't know. It should be noted that a lot of big lecture halls at other schools are used for movies and big events in evenings and weekends, so this is not much different. Calwatch 03:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I really doesn't matter that much for the purpose of this article. If you would like to do some extra-research to be included on this subject then I would say go ahead. But, again I don't think it matters that much.

Insert-Belltower 03:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Environment

"Environment is also a key factor that influences student life." Great. Doesn't belond in an encyclopedia article. It's an opinion of the author and not a fact. It further contributes to this piece reading as an opinion not an entry of pure factual information. That section as a whole, is more relevant to an entry on Riverside and not the University itself. "Environment is also a key factor that influences student life. The Riverside area is referred to as a “smog belt” because of its above-average level of air pollution. In a comparison by the National Campaign Against Dirty Air Power (2003), the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area was found to be the most polluted region based on year-round soot measurements when compared to other U.S. cities. In fact, the New England Journal of Medicine (2004) published results from a longitudinal study comparing pollution in southern California communities with lung health in children. Not only did the authors find that Riverside pollution levels were amongst the highest, but they also discovered that air in this region can damage childrens' lungs. [15]. [NEJM 2004;351:1057-1067]. The associated brown haze can be seen in the Carillon Tower photo below, where it obscures the bottom third of the sky." Should be cut. It makes no mention of the school itself. Obviously there should be a link to the city of Riverside, or even a statement that says "The city of Riverside is know for high levels of smog." If the reader wants to investigate further, that's fine. You wouldn't read an article about "The Bush Doctrine" and find a large section about the disputed 2000 election.

--Posted by Aucaman^Talk 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Environment: I believe that this is an important point to mention in the UCR article because it directly has an impact on student life. Other Wiki articles on UC campuses describe the university environment.

From the UCI wiki article Student Life section: “Due to its location in a preplanned suburban community, general student apathy, reputation as an academic or suitcase school (students tend to go home on the weekends, but stay on campus during the week nights), UCI has had a reputation as a quieter college town. Newport Beach, which is less than 10 minutes away, is home to a vibrant night life.”

This briefly describes key factors the will influence a student’s life at UCI, even though some of which are negative. The UCR article is not out of the ordinary in this regard. Insert-Belltower 02:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Riverside is sometimes referred to as "The 909," carries somewhat of a negative connotation <--- may be true, but what's your source???? stick with the facts.

The source is already cited in the article, last I checked.

Insert-Belltower 02:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a sentence with a reference should do, though. The air in the Inland Empire has cleaned up dramatically since 10 or 20 years ago, and the smog isn't much of an issue. Calwatch 03:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Calwatch, I realize that you've probably heard a lot of hearsay about the smog, and you may even have personal experience. However, the latest pollution data (cited) as well as a recent NEJM article (cited) supports the notion that Riverside is still very much polluted...and damages lungs in children. The issue is verifiability, not truth. Regardless, I can tell you that the smog in Riverside is the worst I've seen anywhere. With regard to references on "The 909," it's pretty much common knowledge what the 909 means. I did cite a reference, but I will use one that's not from wiki. However, I'm now concerned that this individual is attempting to suppress truth/facts and censor potentially harmful facts about UCR through any means possible. UCRGrad 03:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

As I said before, I think this article has come a long way from when it was 6 months ago, when my attempts to put the SAT score and GPA of the average freshman were reverted and I was attacked personally for including that information. (See talk archives.) But at this point, no one is "suppressing" verifiable negative information about the school. Some of the stuff you are defending are pretty ancillary to the campus. Calwatch 03:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with UCRGrad regarding the smog, however, this portion needs to be cleaned up. I definitely agree that students at UC Riverside and the surrounding areas are exposed to high levels and it is apparent by simple observation as well as the two sources given. I have concluded that the last two sentences can be condensed citing either the first or both sources (I will let both remain and include the organizations involved in the sentence). The section stating: "that the air in this region can damage the lungs of growing children" is a statement that should be found in an entry about health effects due to smog in general (unless there is something magical about the specific type of smog in this region affecting growing children in a different manner - the citation is used to show scientific support for the high levels of smog in the area). There are numerous health problems associated with elevated smog levels and listing them all would be ridiculous - I will generalize this and link it to "health effects" associated with elevated levels of smog. Pimpclinton 06:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

However, I am concerned with the "smog belt" reference - the link provided does not support this weasel wording (see below) and proper citation is necessary. It should be reworded showing support for the claim that "smog belt" is used by some locals (citing "mrxalleycat" doesn't count); or this should be removed. Pimpclinton 06:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The "citation needed" refers to a citation of the reference to "National Campaign Against Dirty Air Power (2003)". To UnblockingTau- please refer to the discussion above on why I generalized this statement to "many smog effects."

Athletics

Athletics, which I mentioned earliers: "Because of the commuter nature of the school, school spirit and enthusiasm for UC Riverside athletics is low, and attendance at these events (except promotional games) tends to be minimal." OPINION OPINION OPINION. Not only does the author make a subjective conclusion but they attempt to explain the cause as well--both are inappropriate in a non-biased article. And again, 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.

--Posted by Aucaman^Talk 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with a rewording of this statement regarding sports attendence, but assert that the principal point of it is true and can be fully cited. I will look for more information on this subject. I would not have a problem with adding the Div.I information, as long as it's cited and placed in the appropriate place.

There still needs to be a mention of the recent Athletic sucesses. If we're going to discuss low attendence we must discuss the fact that two teams just qualfied fro the NCAA tourney in the first time in school's history. TheRegicider 19:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from adding this information. SoCalAlum 21:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the lock prevents me. I just created my account, I normally just edited with out, so I'm considered new.TheRegicider 00:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

General Comments: I am somewhat amused by the lines: "This article is a disgrace. It's biased and purposely negative. Certain people are using this page as a way to deter students from attending, because they had a bad experience. This is not the venue, it needs to stop."

There is absolutely not validity or proof for these statements. However they reveal your own personal bias towards this article and your agenda to change it as you see fit.

Have a Nice Day

Insert-Belltower Insert-Belltower 02:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you should stop accusing others of having personal agendas. WP:AGF. Your comments above that look constructive, but the rest ("General Comments") was unnecessary and irrelevant to this article. –Tifego^(t) _{03:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

Actually, Tifego, if you scroll up, you'll find that the vast majority of accusations that there is a personal agenda have been from others directed at IB and me. I have even taken the time to list many of the offenses from DtEW in a separate dedicated section. You should check it out. UCRGrad 03:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So? It's not helping the article. Stop trying to put the blame on DtEW. –Tifego^(t) _{03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

Lots of schools have poor attendance for sporting events, and most of them are commuter schools. The other schools in the Big West Conference (Fullerton State, UC Irvine, San Jose State) are not known for high attendance either. See, for instance, this editorial from the student newspaper (scared of the thought of the usual 1,000 patron crowd in a 12,000 seat arena); assistant sports editor column complaining about sports apathy, etc. Calwatch 03:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What then is the problem with mentioning it? I wouldn't object if the same thing was said in articles on the other commuter schools.

Insert-Belltower 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Haider (pronounced 'Hater')

Where is the source that his name is pronounced this way and what's the significance? Aucaman^Talk 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is important to know how to correctly pronounce something.

Insert-Belltower 02:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If that is your reasoning, then you shouldn't mind the change, which is made according to this pronunciation guide. –Tifego^(t) _{03:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

<-- yes it is important to "know how to correctly pronounce something" but a name like "haider" isn't too difficult to decipher. if that's your reasoning, then we can go through the entire article and sound (prounounced "sownd") out word for our ("owr") readers ("reeeduhrs"). take this supercilious garbage out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UcrGraduate (talk • contribs)

I agree. Aucaman^Talk 03:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It could be prounounced "HAY-ter" or "HIGH-ter." It's not obvious to me, and it wasn't obvious to the 3 people sitting next to me just now either. UCRGrad 03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad

I was just about to write the same thing. Insert-Belltower 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not "hay-der" or "high-der"? The first of those seems most logical to assume. –Tifego^(t) _{03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

More neutral would be to use the IPA alphabet. Any linguists in the house? Calwatch 03:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

so you decided to help the readers pronounce haider but no help w/ Rubidoux??

I didn't write the paragraph containing Rubidoux. I don't go around changing other people's work, unless there are factual errors or things that I can correct. In addition, I'm wondering if you can cite some grammatical rule that dictates the pronounciation of the prefix "Hai-"...thanks. UCRGrad 03:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rubidoux is pronounced in the standard way with the French "dough" as the last syllable. I agree Haider could go many ways. Calwatch 03:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

it wasn't obvious to me or the 4 other people sitting next to me. whether, it's pronounced hay or high, the content of the passage is not affected whatsoever. potaytoes, potahtoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by UcrGraduate (talk • contribs)

Archiving

This page is in a serious need of some archiving, but most of the discussions seem recent. What do you guys think? Aucaman^Talk 02:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think everything above the "NPOV editing" section can safely be archived at this time. –Tifego^(t) _{02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

I agree. Calwatch 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Aucaman^Talk 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Insert-Belltower 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

POV to POV check

Finally, some good news. I've replaced the POV dispute tag with a POV-check tag. The article has made significant improvements NPOV-wise, for which I compliment all users involved. Right now, the article fits into the "Articles which you have edited to be neutral, but may have overlooked something" category. I don't plan to defend the POV-check, so anyone with a decent reason should feel free to remove it. Deltabeignet 03:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is definitely good news, and I agree with Deltabeignet that this article has made significant progress in its neutrality. However, I replaced {{POV check}} with {{POV}} because I think the choice between the tags boils down to how active the dispute is, not so much how serious the article's POV problems are. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the article's NPOV status in the past few days, so it's still an active dispute. Tag placement isn't a huge issue for me, so anyone can feel free to change back to POV check if they feel it's warranted. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Alumni Giving Rates

According this this article in the Harvard Crimson (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510011) the national percentage of alumni donations is only 12%, with the top schools like Harvard at about 40%. The stat's purpose is clearly to paint a negative picture of the school, with the lack of context blowing it out of purportion. Even the, these stats hardly hold much water when it comes to rankings. US News and Review (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/weight_brief.php) allows them to account for no more than 5% of their total scores. Thusly, the statistic is already incorporated into the article via the USNR ranking. I'm going to delete it until a justifiable explaination is given. TheRegicider 05:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see why somebody tried to take out that line. I don't think the purpose of the statistic was to paint a negative picture of the school, per se. I mean, I looked at the US News reference, and it checks out. I agree that alumni giving rate is only a small component of overall ranking, but I think it says a lot when a school's overall rank in alumni donations is dead last in the country. I also saw on US News that they also give the school's rank based on alumni giving, not just the percentage...since they have two separate columns for this statistics and they mention it in the big table, I'm pretty sure it's important. I also don't see how the statistic is already incorporated in the article, as I don't htink it's mentioned anywhere else. So I'm adding it back in, as I honestlyl don't see a very good reason to take it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.178.207 (talk • contribs)

Since the article mentions the overrall USNR ranking, it's redundant to include statistics they used to come up with that ranking. The stat lacks context, the giving rate is not far above the national average. If it held any real significance it would account for more than 5% of the schools total ranking. So given its little importance, the fact that we already cite the total ranking, we don't need it. It's staying out.TheRegicider 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with the user above and NOT with Theregicider. It's important simply because USNWR chose to report it separately. When I read scientific articles, the authors will make conclusions at the end. This is like the "overall rank." However, people reading these articles will demand to know how these conclusions were derived. People want to know HOW the conclusions were determined, i.e. HOW they came up with "overall rank." Since you say that alumni giving rate is a part of how overall rank is determined by USNWR, you are obliged to include it.

As an aside,I've looked at the change log and it looks like you have been systematically removing information that makes this school look bad. I'd like you to stop doing that. Some of your changes are reasonable, but others really are not. In this case, they're not. Thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.1 (talk • contribs)

You haven't signed any of the remarks, so in all liklihood, you were responding and supporting yourself. How is anyone supposed to take seriously remarks that aren't even accounted for? The word "indeed" at the begining of the quote implies a tone not appropriate in an unbiased article. The stat as it is now lacks context. No one knows anything about alumni giving rates, so 5% seems low when in fact it is not. For instance the fact that public university's typically have far far lower giving rates, that as a whole the rates have declined accross the entire country, etc etc. Few if any of the other school's article include this stat, as the UNSR ranking as a whole already includes it. I'm not obliged to do anything but make this article fair, as it stands right now the statistics are arranged in such a way that are overwhelmingly negative. You're new here--or an old person with a new name attempting to fool people--so I'm going to go ahead and revert this. TheRegicider 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Responses to ALL of TheRegicider's Arguments against Including Alumni Giving Rates

TheRegicider has argued that we shouldn't include alumni giving rates. I have summarized his reasons and explained why he is incorrect or his logic is fault.

Reason 1: National alumni donation rate is 12%, at Harvard about 40%. Therefore, the lack of context "blows it out of proportion." (UCR is 5%)

This is irrelevant. The fact is, 5% is STILL extremely low compared to those national average and Harvard. Put differently, the national average is 2.4x higher than UCR, and Harvard is 8x higher. We might even consider adding the previous sentence in too.

Reason 2: USNWR only gives 5% weight to alumni giving rates. Since we have already listed overall rank of UCR, we don't need to list facts that comprise the overall rank.

This reasoning makes no sense. As another user already tried to explain to TheRegicider, people don't want to just know the overall rank, they want to know how it was derived -- what facts or statistics contributed to that overall rank. If all of the component scores were not important, USNews wouldn't have listed them out in their master table -- they would have simply listed each school next to its numerical rank and that's it.

Reason 3: Theregicider changes his argunent slightly and writes that if alumni giving rates "held any real significance it would account for more than 5% of the schools total ranking."

This is also untrue. If alumni giving rates did NOT hold any real significant, US News would NOT have used it to calculate the overall rank TO BEGIN WITH! The FACT that USNWR even considers this statistics is PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that it IS important.

Reason 3: You haven't signed any of the remarks, so in all liklihood, you were responding and supporting yourself. [directed to unsigned editors]

Wikipedia allows unsigned editors. Using the fact that some authors didn't sign their work is not a valid reason to revert or to make accusations (especially when both anonymous users EXPLAINED their reasoning in discussion.)

Reason 4: The word "indeed" at the begining of the quote implies a tone not appropriate in an unbiased article.

Indeed is not an inherently biased word. In context it does not add bias either. It is simply a linker word that maintains the direction of the paragraph.

Reason 5: "No one knows anything about alumni giving rates, so 5% seems low when in fact it is not."

As explained above, the national average is 2.4x as high as UCR's alumni giving rate. It IS LOW. ..however just in case people aren't familiar with the national average, the sentence also qualifies this percentage with UCR's nationwide rank in terms of alumni giving. That way, there's no way you could be confused about whether 5% is high, middle, or low. It is low because UCR is ranked LAST in alumni giving.

Reason 6: For instance the fact that public university's typically have far far lower giving rates, that as a whole the rates have declined accross the entire country, etc etc.

Again, UCR's nationwide RANK for alumni giving is also specified in the sentence you are trying to delete. Therefore, it really makes little difference that public universities have lower giving rates - UCR is the LOWEST of ALL public universities. Whether or not rates have declined is irrelevant as well.

Reason 7: Few if any of the other school's article include this stat,

This article is far more comprehensive and informative than articles from other schools on Wiki. As many people have pointed out in the past, using other wikipedia articles is NOT a valid reference. I will also reiterate that other Wiki articles on colleges are NOT the benchmark for how a college article should be written.

Reason 8: I'm not obliged to do anything but make this article fair, as it stands right now the statistics are arranged in such a way that are overwhelmingly negative.

So your true reason for removing the line is to take out a negative fact about UC Riverside. Unfortunately, if you make a list of all the important statistics one would be interested in from a university, they're all included in the article. The problem is that most of these statistics are not favorable when it comes to UCR. There's really no way to change the fact that when compared to other UC's, UCR is usually at the bottom or near the bottom in just about everything (except for pollution) - and this is easily substantiated in just about any University-wide publication. HOWEVER, there's a difference between relaying the FACTS about UCR (which are quite negative from an objective standpoint) and BIAS. By removing important facts and sugar-coating others, you are actually INTRODUCING positive bias! As it stands now, the article is an accurate portrayal of UCR. I truly and honestly believe that.

Reason 9: You're new here--or an old person with a new name attempting to fool people--so I'm going to go ahead and revert this. [directed at an unsigned editor]

So in the absence of any other good argument, you're going to simply revert because the guy didn't sign his name? Unless you can produce a Wiki article that permits reversion of unsigned article changes, I think you're definitely out of line here.

UCRGrad 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you appear to be incapable of understanding that it's not just the stat, but the way it is presented, I will make it more appropriate tonight. Until then, it stays out. TheRegicider 17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I dissected out 9 of your counterarguments above, and I addressed all of them. I notice that you were able to defend 0 of them. You are now clinging to one of your MINOR arguments as to why the line should be removed, yet in re-reading what you wrote, you failed to EXPLAIN the problem with the "presentation" of the line. A few things: - just because YOU have a problem with the way a sentence is "presented," does not give you the prima facie right to delete it. Otherwise, you are out of line. - if you have a problem with the presentation of a sentence, you are expected to EXPLAIN WHY. It is not sufficient to say "I don't like it, I'm deleting it. That's it." Until you explain why, the line stays in. - Like it or not, not everyone is going to SIGN their edits. That's just life. However, when individuals make edits AND EXPLAIN WHY in discussion, then you are expected to address their comments. If you do a blanket revert, you are behaving inappropriately here.

UCRGrad 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Redundant sentence

I have a problem with this sentence in the article:

"Approximately 1 out of every 8 freshmen leave UC Riverside after their first year, based on a freshman retention rate of 85%, the lowest of any UC"

The problem is that it says the same thing twice. 1 out of every 8 means 85% retention rate, so it's stupid to say the same thing twice in a row. 85% is the more accurate of the two numbers, so I think that's the one that should stay in the article, but certainly not both of them should stay. –Tifego^(t) _{21:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)}

That sounds reasonable to me.

Insert-Belltower 22:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Regicider Issue

Sorry Regicider, you lose. UCRGrad has given you 8 reasons why the statistic should stand, and your response: "since you appear to be incapable of understanding that it's not just the stat, but the way it is presented, I will make it more appropriate tonight. Until then, it stays out." Not only does this statement show a lack a maturity it also shows an unwillingness to be reasonable. You have lost my respect. I will REVERT any changes that you make until you apologize to UCRgrad and conduct yourself in a more civil manner.

Good Day Insert-Belltower 22:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've compromised to acknowledge the statistics necessity. However in it's current form, it doesn't provide context. It is entirely appropriate to compare the giving rate to UCLA and UC Davis as the article does it numerous times already. I couldn't care less about your respect, nor will I apologize. You promise to revert anything I do is no different than my promise to keep that stat out in its current form--so much for your maturity eh? TheRegicider 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Your twisted logic is mindbloggling. I would suggest that you take some courses in critical thinking, which you might find a local community college. You have not made the case for why this particular statistic needs to be in a context.

Insert-Belltower 23:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no reasonable objection to the posting of 2 other similar university's alumni rates. Since the average reader has no real knowledge of alumni giving rates, lets provide them with adequate context. The stats still show that UCR is below, so whats the problem unless you're trying to mislead. TheRegicider 23:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is too arbitrary to cherry pick alumni giving rates of two universities of YOUR choosing. The only objective way is to use the method from US News and World report -- that is, give the school's OVERALL ALUMNI GIVING RANK along with the alumni giving percentage. UCR ranks LAST in the nation. Stop trying to sugar-coat it and add positive bias. It's LAST. DEAD LAST. And that fact must be included. UCRGrad 01:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to address anything Regicider says, until he shows more respect.

68.73.54.149 03:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha. I'm sorry for not giving you your just due sir. Cry me a river. TheRegicider 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Community Service

According to Washington Monthly, UCR ranks number one in the nation for community service. ( http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0201.charts.html ) With all the negativity this stat needs to go up. I'm not sure whether it fits better under student life, academics, or history. Let me know and I'll put it up. TheRegicider 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's cited, I don't have a problem with it.

Insert-Belltower 23:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it makes most sense under student life, or if there's no good place to put it in there, then under academics. –Tifego^(t) _{23:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)}

student life is good

Images & captions

Why does this article have so many images? Most articles with this many images also have a lot more text than this.

• I especially wonder why there are 2 different pictures of ugly brown construction sites in this article (one in "Academics" and another in "Student life"). Lots of places have construction going on all over, but there's no case for it being so prominently displayed in an article unless some huge proportion of the campus is perpetually in a state of construction. Also, the caption on the first construction image sounds quite hateful (albeit subtly): "Construction in the core of campus. Typical brown-brick buildings to the left, right, and background, alongside tree/cement landscaping". The image already speaks for itself as far as building color and where the trees and cement are, and saying it's "in the core of the campus" is no more necessary or relevant than saying it's "on campus".
• The DDR image is kind of random. I think if anything else should go (in addition to the first one above), it's probably that.
• About the note, "The associated brown haze can be seen in the Carillon Tower photo on the right, where it obscures the bottom third of the sky." This seems unnecessary to me, especially because the photo has nowhere near enough "brown haze" in it to honestly describe it as "obscuring" the bottom third of the sky. –Tifego^(t) _{23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)}

I agree. Unless anyone has anything better I can take some in the next few days. As for the construction, there are only 3 projects currently ongoing at UCR so you're right it does skew reality. TheRegicider 23:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

1.) I would be okay with the following: "The associated brown haze can be seen in the Carillon Tower photo on the right, as seen in the bottom third of the sky."

2.) I don't have a problem with the caption under the representative picture of construction, I'm not sure why you see it as "hateful." It is a growing campus, and that should be illustrated.

3.) I like the belltower picture, it's a key symbol of the school.

Insert-Belltower 03:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The belltower picture is fine, and I didn't say otherwise, but there's no need to have two construction site pictures, unless mounds of dirt and "typical brown-brick buildings" are also key symbols of the school. And "typical" is the word I had the biggest problem with in the caption. It's too vague a term, and not very neutral-sounding to describe anything as "typical". (It also didn't help that both of the construction captions used that same word.) I mean, if it's important that it's typical, it would be much better to say what exactly that means, or at least use a slightly less-loaded word such as "common". –Tifego^(t) _{01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

By the way, I'm not extremely adamant about that. Just take it as my opinion that it was a (minor) violation of WP:NPOV. –Tifego^(t) _{02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

I would be okay with the use of the word "common." However, it is important that the caption be clear and detailed.

Insert-Belltower 14:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel wording

"Riverside area is referred to as a “smog belt” because of its above-average level of air pollution."

Who refers to it as that? It should be worded differently in the article. –Tifego^(t) _{02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

I think that this is completely appropriate. I don't understand what is the problem?

Insert-Belltower 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• The problem, in short, is that we don't know who refers to it as a smog belt, and without a source, the assertion is unverifiable. The ideal sentence would look something like this:

"In 2005, emeritus professor and Harvard graduate Dr. Bert Kopecsky decried Riverside air standards in the New England Journal of Medicine, saying, 'Look at the higher concentration of particulates and nitrates. This place is practically a smog belt'.(footnote)" Deltabeignet 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)