Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 28 April 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:TrollWarning

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Racism

Racism in the Inlande Empire isn't relevant in an article about UCR. The Inland Empire is massive, with millions of people. The placement of the article is clearly an attempt to reflect poorly on the school by association. The point is that UCR is most diverse campus in the UC system, racism clearly is not a problem. TheRegicider 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TheRegicider on this point, although I would assume good faith re: the claim that the edit is "an attempt to reflect poorly on the school by association". Discussion of racism would be relevant if someone provided evidence that there are significantly more hate or bias motivated incidents at UCR than at other UC schools, or other schools in California. TheRegicider said in the edit summary that we don't discuss Richmond gangs in the Berkeley article. As another example, I'm from Ventura County, CA, where we've had a problem with Nazi skinhead gangs for a while. Do we discuss this in University of California, Santa Barbara, California State University, Channel Islands, California Lutheran University, etc.? szyslak (t, c, e) 21:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad's Justification of Need to Include Article on Racism

Summary of objections by others:

Objection: Racism in the Inlamd Empire is not relevant in an article about UCR.

Racism IS relevant because: UCR is not an isolated entity - it is integrated geographically and socioeconomically with the city/county of Riverside, as well as the surrounding community. It is not possible to discuss a university EXCLUSIVE of these associated factors.

Objection: Placement of article is an attempt to reflect poorly on the school by association.

Absolutely not. If you read the article, right at the top of Student Life it says "The 2006 U.S. News & World Report College Rankings place UC Riverside #4 nationwide for campus diversity." The reader infers that UCR is a haven for people of color and embraces people of all ethnic backgrounds. Failure to mention that UCR is located smack-dab in the middle of an area KNOWN to have a high incidence of racial hate crime is incredibly misleading. The information MUST be balanced in order to have a neutral point of view. Otherwise, the article will have a positive bias.

Objection: Discussion of racism only pertinent if someone provided evidence that there is more hate crime at UCR than other UC schools, or other schools in CA.

Discussion of race in general is 100% pertinent to a university article. Information on ethnic distribution, ethnic diversity, etc. is almost always included in brochures, college websites, it's discussed in US News, Princeton Review, etc. However, if something is unusual about race relations at a school, especially one that claims to have one of the most diverse student bodies in the nation, it deserves mention. I agree that if someone actually studied rates of hate crime at UCR vs. other UC schools, it should be included for that reason. But in the absence of such a study, discussion of hate is STILL important in this article for the above reasons. Furthermore, even IF the rate of hate crime isn't the highest in the UC system, it STILL deserves mention because of that fact that UCR is located in such a geographical location that exposes people to hate crime.

Objection: We don't discuss Richmond gangs in Berkeley article, therefore, should not discuss racism in UCR article. Corollary: There are Nazi skinheads in Ventura County, should we discuss them in the USCB, CSU Channel Islands, and CA Lutheran Univ articles?

There are a lot of things in the Berkeley article that are not mentioned that we mention here, and vice versa. It really isn't relevant if Richmond gangs aren't mentioned. HOWEVER, if someone were add information that was a) referenced, and b) demonstrated how pervasive a problem Richmond gangs were, then it SHOULD be included. However, Berkeley and the east bay is compartmentalized and the Richmond gangs do not impact the Berkeley campus or immediately adjacent area that much. It's a nonparallel example. I have an article that demonstrates how pervasive racism is in the Riverside area.

For the above reasons, I am confident that the information about racism in Riverside is important to this article about UC Riverside, in order to balance the potentially biasing data that UCR is the most diverse campus in the UC system, and #4 for ethnic diversity in the nation.

The article you cite does demonstrate one thing: there are Nazi punks in the Inland Empire. But there are Nazi punks in a lot of places. Here's the chain of logic you seem to be going by:

• There is racist violence in the Inland Empire.
• UCR is in the Inland Empire.
• Therefore, there could be racist violence at UCR, or affecting UCR students.

Your logical breakdown does not accurately reflect what I wrote. I NEVER made the conclusion that there could be racist violence at UCR, nor that it could affect UCR students. The point of contention HERE is IS IT APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE THE HIGH INCIDENCE OF HATE CRIME IN RIVERSIDE in this article? I believe the answer is YES. This is the question we are considering. UCRGrad 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Inland Empire Nazis could go after UCR students, but that doesn't mean they will. I can see how verifiable information about this problem, from reliable sources, might be relevant in articles like Riverside, California and Inland Empire (California). But unless there's a verifiable source that says UCR is a dangerous place for minorities, the passage about neo-Nazis is inappropriate in this article, and is POV original research.

Nowhere did my contribution to the article state or imply that UCR was a dangerous place for minorities. Please re-read what was added. UCRGrad 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, I have reverted your edits. szyslak (t, c, e) 02:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Listing hate crime incidents on campus or immediately adjacent is fine, but a general perception of "hate" miles away from the campus is irrelevant. Calwatch 03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate, the question we are considering here is: IS IT APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HIGH RATE OF HATE CRIME IN RIVERSIDE IN A UC RIVERSIDE ARTICLE? The answer is YES for many reasons:

1) We mention that UCR ranks #4 in the nation for ethnic diversity. Yet, we don't mention that UCR is located in an area known for its racial hate crime? There is a clear IMBALANCE of information in this article. 2) If we do not mention hate crime, then we should not mention ethnic diversity on campus. Neutral POV implies a balance of information, not a positive bias. 3) However, race SHOULD be mentioned. Ethnic distribution, ethnic diversity, etc. are very frequently considered when colleges are profiled in US News, Princeton Review, recruitment brochures, etc. Issues with race ARE pertinent to an encyclopedia article 4) UCR is NOT an isolated entity. It is geographically and socioeconomically tied with its surrounding community, like all universities. When people look for information regarding a college, they want to know what the environment is like - the weather (i.e. sunny, rainy, etc.), what the surrounding city is like (i.e. urban, things to do, etc.), what the crime rate is, etc. It goes without saying that students do not isolate themselves to the campus area. 5) Calwatch, please read the article I referenced. The rate of hate crime is not just a "perception of hate miles away." It is actual racial VIOLENCE and organized white supremacy IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND the rest of the Inland Empire. 6) It's a huge problem. 148 hate crimes in 2004 = a crime against an ethnic minority is committed EVERY TWO to THREE DAYS. THIS is not a trivial matter. To put things into perspective, the hate crime rate is DECREASING throughout California, but INCREASING in Riverside.

UCRGrad 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Riverside County is huge. By your own admission, many of the UCR students commute from outside the area, including many from Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Still others are suitcase students and flee Thursday evening or Friday afternoon, so it doesn't matter. Name one single hate crime conviction at UCR or in student housing. You can't. herefore, the change will be reverted. Calwatch 04:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please address ALL 6 of my reasons above, before reverting for the sake of reverting. If you are truly correct in your standpoint, then you should have no problem at all. By quickly reverting and providing a half-hearted response to 1 of my 6 reasons, I'm assuming that you really don't have good reasons to delete my addition to the article. As such, I am perfectly justified in reinstating what I contributed.

To address what YOU wrote, I NEVER wrote that UCR students "flee to LA and OC." (if you disagree, please quote where I have written that fact.) On the contrary, I believe a large portion of students that commute home on the weekends are actually from the Inland Empire anyway. Students from further away probably would elect to stay nearby. Nevertheless, all of this is irrelevant and constitutes original research. Please let me remind you that the standard here is VERIFIABILITY. I have provided VERIFIABLE and WELL-REFERENCED information in the form of my contribution to the article. It is 100% IRRELEVANT whether I can "name one hate crime that has occured at UCR." I have provided verifiable facts, and I have met the threshold here at Misplaced Pages. I have provided 6 reasons why the information belongs in this article.

This article is about UC Riverside. It's not about what a horrible place Riverside is. Of course conditions in the surrounding area are a vital part of the college experience. That doesn't mean we have to go into detail about every possible event outside campus that might affect UCR students. That's what the article Riverside, California is for. In addition, the discussion about campus diversity has no bearing whatsoever on whether the passage about hate crimes belongs in this article. It's a false dichotomy to argue that one "requires" the other. szyslak (t, c, e) 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear szyslak, I agree this article is about UC Riverside. However, if there are so-called horrible facts about the surrounding city, then so be it - they need to be mentioned as well because for the billionth time, UCR is geogragraphically, socioeconomically, culturally, etc. integrated with Riverside. I disagree that mention of UCR being #4 in the nation for ethnic diversity does NOT mandate the mention of hate crime in Riverside. When we state that UCR is one of the most diverse universities in the country, it is not obvious to people unfamiliar with the area that there is so much widespread racism nearby. In fact, one might even infer that ethnic minorities are welcomed and celebrated, whereas this may or may not be the case. Regardless, for these reasons, it is misleading to mention diversity alone because of its connotations. This is why it is so important to mention the high rate of hate crime. Finally, I agree that we should not mention every event that occurs in the Inland Empire. However, the issue with racism is so severe that the region sees one hate crime every two or three days. That's a LOT!! Important and significant facts about the region deserve mention. UCRGrad 05:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual information or not, it has little to no relevance. It's clearly an inflammatory statistic posted by someone who has thus far had nearly all their edits reverted. Hate Crimes in a geographic area hundreds of miles by hundreds of miles is not appropriate in an article about a SINGLE school. Unless the article sheds light on a university problem or highlights a growing on-campus trend then it's not appropriate. General things, like "there is smog" "lots of restuarants" etc etc, are necessary to give readers perspective, but anything beyond that is unneccesary and irrelevant. Next are we going to detail housing prices, road conditions, natural wildlife and so on and so forth? Going into so much detail about a specific problem while you make no such effort in other areas creates a skewed perspective and thus deviates from neutrality. The stat is a no go. TheRegicider 06:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree (this makes at least 4 people now) that it's not relevant to the article. A 10-word aside about it might be appropriate, but not that amount of detail, and not in the introductory paragraph of the "student life" section. It doesn't matter if it's the worst university in the world, the article doesn't need to resort to actively bashing it at every possible opportunity to get that point across (indeed, I fear it is getting that point across already despite it likely not being true). This information is both an unbalancingly negative point, and an irrelevant one in this context (note that an equally detailed positive or neutral description of some aspect of the surrounding area would also be inappropriate there). UCRGrad is the sole supporter of its inclusion AFAICT and it has been removed all 4 of the times it was added within the last day or so. –Tifego _{07:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)}

With regard to relevance, I have already explained extensively why my latest contribution to the article is relevant. Since you failed to directly address 90% of it, I will go ahead and cut/paste and make some additions: 1) We mention that UCR ranks #4 in the nation for ethnic diversity. Not mentioning that UCR is situated in an area well-documented to have a high rate of hate crime would be misleading and imbalanced. Hate crime MUST be mentioned if we mention how racially diverse UCR is. 2) As a whole, Issues of race and ethnicity are germaine to an article about a university. When magazines, periodicals, college books, brochures, etc. review or describe colleges, it would be unusual NOT to find some mention of race. 3) UCR is NOT an isolated entity. It is geographically and socioeconomically tied with its surrounding community, like all universities. When people look for information regarding a college, they want to know what the environment is like - the weather (i.e. sunny, rainy, etc.), what the surrounding city is like (i.e. urban, things to do, etc.), what the crime rate is, etc. If hate crimes are committed ONCE EVERY TWO TO THREE DAYS, then this obviously deserves mention. 4) Your argument that we should not mention the pervasive problem of racial crime because it affects an area of several hundred square miles is irrelevant. By your reasoning, we should not mention the smog either, because the smog covers an even wider area - the entire southern CA. The fact is, UCR is located smack-dab in the middle of the Inland Empire, and issues of race are not isolated by an imaginary dotted line that surrounds the physical campus, just as the smog does not stop at the end of University Ave. 5) You listed some non-parallel examples, such as why aren't we compelled to detail housing prices, road condiions, natural wildlife, etc.? The simple answer is that these issues are NOT important in an article about a university, whereas race relations fits well because of the aforementioned reasons. On that note, average rent and housing affordabilbity WOULD be relevant to this article because not all students live in the dorms, and major publications frequently discuss these issues about colleges as well. 6) You make a lot of blanket statements, like "this is irrelevant," but you don't expand on that any further. Just so you know, it is insufficient to simply dismiss someone's contributions without explaining WHY - remember, it's not "your opinion" that counts, but how you justify your opinions. 7) I'm not sure where you got the statistic that 90% of my contributions have been reverted because I am actually one of the principal authors to this article. In contrast, your objections have been frequently dismissed by neutral third parties who don't actually attend UCR. I'm wondering if UCR students like TheRegicider should be allowed to edit this article due to a) obvious inherent bias, b) obvious self-interest to promote the campus, and c) immature behavior thus far with edits here.

With regard to Tifego's comments, it is irrelevant that 4 of the same individuals who routinely object to ANY contributions that shed a negative light on he campus are again not satisfied with my latest contribution. This is not an election. We are not tallying votes here. I have provided excellent arguments as to why the information should remain, and I have met the standard set by Misplaced Pages. Maybe instead of doing blanket reverts, the four of you should get together and actually provide reasonable counterarguments, seeing as how the same four people have conveniently written supportive statements within the same brief time window. UCRGrad 08:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Both UCRGrad and TheRegicider have violated the three-revert rule on this article, as I reported on WP:AN/3RR. Please, let's deal with this like adults and stop the edit warring and personal attacks. Do you guys want this page protected again? szyslak (t, c, e) 08:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict; this is responding to UCRGrad's last post) As I said, it's not the fact that it's negative that is the problem. That would have been inappropriate even if it had been positive. And I haven't been doing blanket reverts - in fact, I said it would be reasonable to replace it with a ~10 word aside, which would be considerably more encyclopedic while getting across the same point (with the same reference). And as others have said, it's the way you are presenting the information that is the problem, not the fact that it's negative.

"This is not an election. We are not tallying votes here."

Yes, But the process works by concensus. There is a concensus against what you are adding despite your previous arguments, because evidently we don't consider those arguments to be good enough. You have not presented any argument whatsoever for why there needs to be so much detail about the activities of racist groups in the same general region as this school.

Also, in response to

"I'm wondering if UCR students like TheRegicider should be allowed to edit this article due to a) obvious inherent bias, b) obvious self-interest to promote the campus, and c) immature behavior thus far with edits here."

To give you some perspective, one could easily say a similar thing of you:

"I'm wondering if UCR graduates like UCRGrad should be allowed to edit this article due to a) obvious inherent bias, b) obvious self-interest to degrade the campus, and c) immature behavior thus far with edits here."

Such statements simply don't belong here, they are incivil at the very least.

–Tifego _{09:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)}

A compromise

I've attempted to make a compromise, mentioning the problem without going overboard explaining it (the reader can always click the reference link to get more info). What does everyone think? –Tifego _{10:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)}

And now for something completely different

Yo, this article is whack, we gotta mention the hate, man, the hate against the minorities - did u guys read that link? It's bad, yo. I know the 909. 909er 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A casual browse of this discussion shows there to be a vast divergence of opinion. I do not object to a more candid and seemingly specific paragraph that would describe the depth of this racism problem that is all too pervasive in our society.

Alas, not to tell the whole truth, casts an undue sugary flavour over the image of the University-- as if to paint facade.

HisBundleAblation 00:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

note: The above two posts (by 909er and HisBundleAblation) were most likely made by UCRGrad. –Tifego _{16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

This is sad.. Who ever this UCRgrad is.. He is for sure an UCR hater.. and you can tell it's a fact.. PERIOD!! I KNOW I KNOW.. this is a personal statement. Well.. that’s what he is appeared to be. bowbowx17:35, 21 April 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.248.239 (talk • contribs)

Reference numbers?

The reference numbers at the bottom don't seem to line up with the numbers in the article. For instance, I click on the little and it scrolls down to entry #14 in the refs. This is a bit confusing and it makes it difficult to determine which reference something is referring to without comparing the {{ref}} and {{note}} tag contents. –Tifego _{17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)}

Dear UCRGrad

The message we are trying to convey is: "UCR ranks #4 nationwide for campus diversity." Period. This alone is not a biased sentence, neither positive or negative. Your interpretation of it as a positively biased sentence occurs in the context you put it in – the surrounding cities and the racial problems that occur – but your support for the correlation between UCR and the communities responsible for these hate crimes is very much lacking (see below). I don't accept the statement above as biased and I contend that it be left as simple. By adding that the surrounding community is less diverse and that hate crimes are of significance to note, you are required to mention that: ... however, hate crimes are nearly non-existent at UCR (add citation). It is here that we’ve returned to a balanced viewpoint, and remained ON-TOPIC; and it is also here where it is apparent that a discussion on "hate crime" does nothing for the wiki entry!

So... for this statement to remain the burden is on you to:

1. Prove (with census data) that hate crimes are reported every two to three days and that this distinctly sets apart the Riverside community from any other community across the U.S. (In other words – is the national average for hate crime in similar sized cities significantly lower?). If the IE is up X% and California is down Y%, this doesn't imply significance in the number of hate crimes occuring - there's no comparison between equally populated cities. However, my real contention is in how you draw correlations between UCR and its community:

2. Prove that these hate crimes are committed in Riverside (or better yet, the surrounding areas of UCR). Stating that UCR is not an isolated entity with regard to the hate crimes of the Inland Empire is naïve and incorrect. You are correct in saying that the community interacts with the university, but have failed to link the hate crimes of distant cities OR Riverside itself with the crime or even the socioeconomic status of the students attending - which is the focus of the article.

I’ve already "fixed" it once and it was changed back to the inadequate form. If you (UCRGrad) understand what I’m explaining to you I would like you to revert it back yourself. Listen to the advice people are giving you - I was astounded when I first started reading this entry on how much "negative vibe," non-relevant information is included. In other words, it is obvious to me and others that you want wikipedia's vieweres to see UCR through your tainted viewpoint (it's so bad, I read about your apparent bias off a message board unrelated to Misplaced Pages before even reading the entry for myself). Pimpclinton 10:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Brief Response: 1) I have already addressed AD NAUSEUM how UCR is integrated with its community. You seem like a reasonable guy. I would expect you to read and quote those arguments and address them. 2) The mere fact that hate crimes occur once every 2-3 days makes it significant, and enough to be included in this article. Your requirement that I make comparisons to other cities, blah blah, is irrelevant. If you have a valid reference that supports your belief that hate crimes are rare on campus, then I would not object to your adding it. Fair is fair. 3) The reference speaks for itself. The statistics are valid for the Inland Empire, which includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties. This is the exact same area I would expect students to be exposed to when they venture off campus. This is the community that students rent apartments in. 4) You didn't fix anything. You just censored the article to your liking because you don't want people to know about the racial hate in Riverside. 5) As I've already expained, there's a difference between BIAS and conveying negative facts. You and other are confusing the two. Facts are facts, and many aspects of UCR are not the greatest - i.e. the reputation, academics, the smog, the athletics, you name it. BIAS would be "UCR sucks." Objectivity is merely stating the fact. UCR is ranked #85. That's that. A solid article would make comparisons to other colleges. I did just that. You and others probably believe that this article should only contain POSITIVE facts about UCR, and negative facts should be "sugar-coated" so the don't sound that bad. I'm sorry, but the standard on Misplaced Pages is VERIFIABILITY and BALANCED point of view. The article achieves just that. UCRGrad 11:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad's responses to PimpClinton

Hey UCRGrad! You made some very good points and I’d like to address them. However, before we further this civil debate I feel we need to clear up points and define parameters you’ve made supporting the current state of the racism reference. As you have suggested I have compiled your quotes to UCR’s role in its community/Inland Empire:

1) I have already addressed AD NAUSEUM how UCR is integrated with its community:

“UCR is not an isolated entity - it is integrated geographically and socioeconomically with the city/county of Riverside, as well as the surrounding community. UCR is located smack-dab in the middle of an area KNOWN to have a high incidence of racial hate crime…. UCR is located in such a geographical location that exposes people to hate crime. UCR is located in an area known for its racial hate crime. UCR is NOT an isolated entity. It is geographically and socioeconomically tied with its surrounding community, like all universities. It is actual racial VIOLENCE and organized white supremacy IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND the rest of the Inland Empire. …so-called horrible facts about the surrounding city, then so be it - they need to be mentioned as well because for the billionth time, UCR is geogragraphically, socioeconomically, culturally, etc. integrated with Riverside. ….there is so much widespread racism nearby. …the issue with racism is so severe that the region sees one hate crime every two or three days.”

- You have tried to show that neo-Nazism and other hate crimes of the IE are applicable to the areas surrounding UCR – similar to “drawing in” a puzzle piece of an incomplete puzzle (a correlation study). However, you have not shown statistical data of hate crimes in the specific areas that students interact with. Would you agree that “significant areas surrounding UCR where the majority (say 80%) of non-commuting students interact with their community” is within the effective areas of UCPD? Would you say the data collected at UCPD of the campus and the surrounding community displays stronger evidence of hate crimes in the area (versus your reference to hate crime in the IE)? If it was shown by data provided by UCPD that hate crimes were significantly lower in the surrounding area (apart from racially/ethnically biased crimes committed on the campus itself, which was said to total 3 in the past 10 years) – would it be sufficient to say that your article does not adequately describe the surrounding UCR community? Are hate crimes evenly distributed across the IE?

Again, the questions you ask aren’t really relevant. Let me illustrate: Suppose we say the pollution levels are high in Riverside County. We have a good reference for this, and we state that “Riverside has high pollution” in the article. At first glance, that seems perfectly appropriate. Well, what if someone were to say “Well, you don’t have a study that looks JUST at UCR. It’s possible that the smog above UCR is very low.” Sure, it’s possible, but that’s ridiculous. More importantly, it’s irrelevant. The article never said that UCR had high pollution, just that Riverside has high pollution. The statement reflects what is available in a verifiable source, and THAT’S IT. It is unnecessary to say, “Well, we need data on where UCR students travel and what areas of Riverside County have more pollution than others.” No we don’t. Because the statement only said “Riverside has high pollution.” It did not say “UCR students are exposed to high pollution levels.” Perhaps one may INFER this, and such an inference is 100% reasonable given that we know that smog spread out, but we can only say what is available in a verifiable source. And that’s EXACTLY what I’ve done. And I’ve met the burden required by Misplaced Pages.UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I ask these questions is that many of us feel that there are disparities in crime rates and location of groups that commit biased crimes between sub-communities and cities in the IE; and therefore mentioning it on the UCR wikipedia entry may/may not have merit (I assume the article’s claims are substantiated by govt statistics). With regard to this I should add:

The statistics are available in a VERIFIABLE source, and it is cited. On wikipedia, we are not required to use what you’re asking – a rigorous or authoritative source, such as government stats, just verifiable sources. UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

- UCR and its students are as geographically and socioeconomically “identical” to the rest of Riverside and the IE in a comparative fashion to that of the Downtown Riverside slums vs. rural Sage vs. Rancho Cucamonga/ Big Bear/ Redlands/ Palm Springs. The fact is- the IE is very distinct, home to urban, suburban and rural areas and also home to a wide variety of political thought, religion, and crime rates/types in sub-communities within cities. I’ve lived in Hemet for the past 23 years and can personally vouch to differences between what I call the “conservative bubble” (what I refer to it) of Hemet and rural areas of the sort and more progressive, suburban areas found in the IE (the “younger” communities in the IE).

I disagree that UCR and its students are geographically/socioecnomically IDENTICAL to the rest of Riverside. I never wrote that, and you have misquoted me. Integrated, yes. Identical, no. UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

- Most importantly, however, is the fact that neither UCR nor the IE are “KNOWN to have a high incidence of racial hate crime”

According to the reference I provided, this is a true statement. And guess what: one crime every 2-3 days *is* a high incidence of something so atrocious. UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the incidence of hate crimes in the IE is nearly matches the incidence of hate crime in California overall (using http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html#table2_35 for population data of California and hate crime incidences reported; and using US census bureau found here http://www.ieep.com/html/pop_trends.htm for population data of the Inland Empire). In other words, Riverside/San Bernardino County is guilty of only the average amount of hate crimes committed throughout California.

I’m very disappointed that you just provided two references that don’t say what you claim them to say. Your FBI link doesn’t show ANY crime rates based on CITY/COUNTY. Your second link only shows the population of Riverside/IE. I don’t know where the heck you came up with this conclusion that Riverside hate crime rates are average. ON THE OTHER HAND, the VERIFIABLE SOURCE that I provided clearly states you are wrong: “Seismic changes in the racial make-up have corresponded with a steady rise in hate crimes, including a particularly vicious spike in racially motivated violence and harassment in the past two years. During that period, as hate crimes dropped 10% statewide in California, the number of reported hate crimes in the Inland Empire shot up 20%. Last year, there were 148 hate crimes reported in the Inland Empire, most of them committed by racist Skinheads and other white supremacists.” http://www.alternet.org/story/27461/?comments=view&cID=53268&pID=53243 Finally, you MUST abide by Wiki’s policy that forbids original research. What you were trying to do, by synthesizing two articles (and making a false conslusion) was original research. I have been following Wiki’s policies by providing verifiable sources.UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

We are concerned with two separate factors here: 1) the diversity of UCR versus the diversity of the surrounding community and 2) the hate crimes committed SPECIFICALLY on the UCR campus versus the hate crimes committed in the surrounding UCR community versus the hate crimes of the IE (which I have already shown to be near equal to the California average). I contend, through the explanations I have given, that the latter information on hate crimes in the IE is irrelevant and detracts from the quality of this entry.

Back to one of my original points. UCR is not geographically or socioeconomically isolated from its surrounding community. Students leave campus to shop at nearby stores, they spend afternoons at the park, they join community service organizations, clubs interact with sponsors, etc. It is standard practice for scholarly articles/publications to discuss the surrounding areas when reporting on universities, and a lot of it has to do with the above reasons. EVEN IF you can provide evidence (which you haven’t) that hate crime on the UCR campus occurs less often (It is also a LOT SMALLER and has fewer ppl), it is STILL IMPORTANT to mention that the area around UCR has a high incidence of racial violence. UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Stating that the UCR surrounding community is related to and/or fits any white-supremist “mold” found throughout the IE displays arrogance and stereotyping – the victim here is the reputation of UCR, unwarranted and unproven.

Unfortunately, I have a verifiable source that supports the concept that the surrounding community supports a high rate of racial violence – and it’s true, I’m sorry to say. I didn’t make this stuff up, nor is it MY opinion. Arrogance, on the other hand, is when people choose to ignore EVIDENCE and insist that they know better. UCRGrad 08:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Stating “UCR is the 4th most diverse school in the nation” displays NO bias in its sole entirety – only you, UCRGrad, have defined it as a “positively-biased” feature of UCR that “must be balanced with negative baises.” Even more so, adding that the “surrounding community is less diverse” only detracts from the purpose of the point of the statement.

I have no problem removing “surrounding community is less diverse.” I didn’t add that, someone else did. Secondly, I’m going to say this again: By boasting how ethnically diverse UCR is while failing to mention the high rate of racial violence that occurs in the surrounding area is 100% misleading and constitutes positive bias. Unless you're going to tell me that UCR students NEVER leave the campus or interact with the Riverside community for any reason. I think it goes without saying.

I appreciate your attempt to address my points, but honestly, you provided two references that didn’t say what you claimed they said, you misquoted me, you didn’t understand that you committed original research, and you made up these ridiculous demands on what needed to proven in order to merely add information readily available from a verifiable source. I’d be happy to respond to anything further, but I would appreciate it if you could be more concise. UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I motion to modify the statement at hand to simply: “The 2006 U.S. News & World Report College Rankings place UC Riverside at #4 nationwide for campus diversity.” No other “balancing” to this statement is necessary nor pertinent as explained above.

Pimpclinton 04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment: I agree, but I think there might be some way of including (elsewhere or after some other addition) information about racism in Riverside in a way that is purely providing additional information for the purpose of comparison, without necessarily being there to balance/unbalance anything. Disclaimer: No version of this that's ever been in the article has approached the level of brevity and objectivity (and/or appropriateness of location) necessary for that, AFAICT. –Tifego _{05:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

In what way is this necessary? Do not characterize me as one insensitive to racial issues, but I can state with statistical evidence that hate crimes in the IE are equal to that of hate crimes throughout California (see my above discussion). Any reference to racism within Riverside should also mention this, and by this point we've ventured too off-topic. I am not entirely opposed to mentioning the lack of diversity in Riverside for comparison - but not as an act of "balancing" the statement of campus diversity. Pimpclinton 05:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"I am not entirely opposed to mentioning the lack of diversity in Riverside for comparison - but not as an act of "balancing" the statement of campus diversity." That was entirely my point; I was in no way arguing it's necessary for balancing or necessary at all. –Tifego _{15:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

Oops, sorry, I think I misunderstood what part of what I was saying you were responding to. –Tifego _{04:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)}

"I counter-motion that we expand the statement about racial violence in Riverside because it is so significant. Half a sentence just doesn't cut it, when we talk about the UCR library and its fantasy collections for an entire paragraph." UCRGrad 08:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to hold your hand through this: 1) open my two “synthesized” sources (fbi.gov and US census bureau data are official government statistics. Please refrain from falsely accusing me of synthesizing my data - they're more legitimate sources than what you've presented). Take the number of hate crimes reported statewide in California and divide it by the population of California (1,393 / 35,893,799 = 3.88 E -5 is the rate of incidence for California). Next, take the number of hate crimes for the IE and divide that by the population in the IE (Riverside Co. + San Bernardino Co.) (148 / (1,782,650 + 1,859,678) = 4.06 E -5 is the rate of incidence for the IE). Hate crime rates in the IE are not statistically significantly higher than that of all of California. Furthermore, data easily obtained from UCPD would undoubtedly show a lower rate of hate crime incidence per capita in the surrounding UCR community and much lower (near non-existant) rate of incidence on the campus itself (I can and will provide statistical evidence for this as soon as the records department is open - I am currently going off hearsay from a UCPD employee). Making any implication that UCR, UCR's surrounding area, and Riverside are guilty of significantly high rates of hate crime without mentioning that they're no higher than hate crime rates throughout California is wrong and misleading. Pimpclinton 14:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What source did you get the number 148 from? That seems to be what UCRGrad is objecting to. –Tifego _{16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

Falsely accusing? I checked your FBI link for the THIRD TIME. NONE of the tables list hate crime by region. If you have found this information, you need to link it directly, or at the very minimum, direct your readers as to HOW to find the information on your site. It is INAPPROPRIATE to make a bold statement, claim that your reference supports your statement, and then provide a link that actually does NOT.

1) Your argument about rates of hate crime in Riverside vs. statewide are irrelevant because it constitutes ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You have to look up fbi tables, look up population data, and do some math. I already pointed out this to you, yet you still insist on doing some calculations above. This is fine for a scientific journal, but is FORBIDDEN on wikipedia. 2) I have already argued that EVEN IF you have a verifiable source. As a minor point, you can argue all you want that your "supposed" (note the quotes) sources are superior than mine...however MY REFERENCE meets the standard for a verifiable source on wikipedia. 3) You wrote above that hate crime rates in the IE are "not statistically significantly higher" than all of California. Can you please tell us what statistical method you employed, what the p-value was, and whether your analysis was powered to detect a difference? Or did you think you could throw out some buzzwords from Statistics and expect people not to call you on it? Regardless, it's irrelevant, because for the billionth time, original research is not allowed here. Thanks. UCRGrad 15:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The FBI article lists state data (hate crime data and population data), the other source shows region population data, I used your figure of 148 in the region calculation. THIS IS NOT ORIGINAL REASEARCH NOR IS IT SYNTHESIZED - please stop falsely accusing me of this! (Misplaced Pages: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. The original motivation for the no original research policy was to combat people with personal theories, such as cranks and trolls, who would attempt to use Misplaced Pages to draw attention to their ideas and to themselves.") This is a secondary source based on two primary sources - looking them up and simple division does not constitute ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Pimpclinton 15:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yo, man. If u use one source to get hate crime rates, another to get populations, then you have to divide the two numbers to get new figures that haven't been previously published, THAT is original research. Read wikipedia's definition: "Original research is a term used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material added to articles by Misplaced Pages editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position." What you did is OBVIOUSLY original research, hands down. Just suck it up and either find a REAL source, or let it go. All this is irrelevant anyway, according to UCRGrad. 909er 15:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't put anything into the main article, I'm trying to show UCRGrad to be careful in his choice of wording and show him that one still has to infer information in his source. You're correct though, I can't technically add this (until I come up with verifiable evidence of my own - which I said is accessible through UCPD). Pimpclinton 15:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

note: The previous post by 909er was most likely made by UCRGrad. –Tifego _{16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

If so, that shows real immaturity and unprofessionalism. I will give UCRGrad the benefit of the doubt but the evidence Tifego yields is compelling. To 909er, “any new interpretation… to advance a position …or, a ‘novel narrative or historical interpretation.’” – pointing out statistical data that requires one-step division for comparative reasons is not a new/novel/historical interpretation. Overall, UCRGrad is inferring and incorrectly correlating information from a “verifiable” source. This source may be verifiable, but UCRGrad has incorrectly interpreted and inferred what this article yields to parts of UCR and its community. I will produce more accurate, verifiable sources based on hate crimes on and around UCR according to statistical data collected by UCPD of UCR - this will be more accurate data for the area and may/may not dispel the "blanketing" statements made in UCRGrad's source.

In addition, the goal of a Misplaced Pages entry on the University of California, Riverside must be that of giving the most accurate representation of how people perceive this campus is in reality and in entirety - including both positive and negative aspects not for the sake of balance but because UCR actually has positive and negative aspects. As this is an inherently subjective task as many points of view are involved and needed to correctly interpret the most accurate portrayal of UCR, collaboration from many people is absolutely mandatory. I would kindly ask UCRGrad to yield to the many other points of view and to value the occurrence of a majority opinion on a topic as he has failed to do. I will contribute as accurately as possible my two decades of experience living in the area and will counter any aspect, regardless of positive or negativeness, so that viewers of the main article receive the most accurate interpretation of the community and area surrounding UCR. Pimpclinton 18:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad's Response

1) If you have to take figures derived from three heterogenous sources, then so some division, and you obtain new (previously unpublished numbers), that is ORIGINAL RESEARCH, no matter how simple it sounds.

2) Secondly, Pimpclinton also tried to draw a statistical conclusion, by saying that there was "no statistically significant" difference. He did not tell us what statistical test he used, what the p-value was, and how powered the study was. In reality, you cannot make the determination that he did with the data available - it's impossible and there is no applicable statistic test you can do. So he basically tried to pull a fast one on us, and THAT IS EXACTLY WHY ORIGINAL RESEARCH IS NOT ALLOWED HERE. (If you are at all familiar with stats/research, his blunder is immediately obvious.)

3) His calculation was faulty because it uses hetereogenous data. Who knows which particular hate crimes were included/not included in that 148 figure. Was it just racial crime? Was this over the same range of years as the FBI data? Lots of questions. Pimpclinton's numbers are invalid because they are not based on comparable data!!! Again, which is why we don't allow original research here.

4) I agree that UCR has both positive and negative aspects, and that there needs to be contributions from many people. I happen to have extensive knowledge about UC Riverside, and when I originally started editing this article, I noticed that there were many facts that were just flat about incorrect, or based on hearsay (an not actually true, nor verifiable). The quality of this article has improved through my efforts and the efforts of others because it is now well-referenced and comprehensive.

5) It is obvious that there are some people who find the article biased. Many of these people do not understand the difference between presenting true, verifiable, negative facts, and BIAS. They're not the same thing. I have attempted to accurately present the facts about UCR, both good and bad, without introducing bias.

6) Other people who find the article biased are UCR students/alumni/etc. There have been quite a few reverts and complaints from known UCR students and IP addresses coming from the UCR campus. Clearly, the opinions of these individuals are inherently biased in the other direction, which explains some of the complaints as well.

7) To Tifego, I think you've been mostly reasonable so far. But instead of complaining about bias, this and that, blah blah, why don't you suggest changes to wording? Why don't you justify them? If you don't agree with what I say, then explain why. If I address your points, feel free to respond. For instance, instead of just saying that I misrepresented the racial hate reference, explain HOW and WHY. There's no need to whine and make retarded accusations.

8) Finally, I am not the only individual who presents negative facts about UC Riverside. There are many others, and they come and go.

9) Not everyone who reads this article flails their arms and cries "bias, bias, bias." It's typically only a few individuals, and most (but not all) of them have personal biases of their own in the other direction -- i.e. they live in Riverside, they went to UCR, etc. UCRGrad 23:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1-3) Let me make something clear- this calculation (which I will find homogenous data for) is not going into the main article. I'm not the one actively making claims on the main page that Riverside has elevated hate crime levels - you are and you have no verifiable data for this. The only source you provide, although verifiable, makes a blanketing claim about the IE and it is you that HAS TO INFER AND INTERPRET this as applicable to the UCR community. In an entry about UCR we must only consider the area students most interact with - IE data simply does not meet this standard. So that is that, it is up to both of us to provide hate crime data for the area.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that UC Riverside students are exposed to elements of the Riverside and Inland Empire community. It is almost always relevant to discuss aspects of the surrounding community, since rarely is data on "what students interact with only" is available. To do that kind of study, you'd have to follow students around or stick GPS transponders in their backpacks. Nobody's gonna do that study. If you have a verifiable source that has more rigorous data, PLEASE ADD IT!!! We're reporting with the best data available at the moment, and it's relevant." UCRGrad 22:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

4-5) Well-referenced is great, retaining the positive and negative aspects of UCR that most people agree to and perceive is excellent, I am not opposed to presenting negative facts. What disturbs me is the NEED for "balance" when the original statement isn't biased! Arguing that UCR's diversity must be countered with something negative about UCR (which you have CLEARLY stated) is LUDICROUS!

To repeat, and to repeat again: By boasting how ethnically diverse UCR is while failing to mention the high rate of racial violence that occurs in the surrounding area is 100% misleading and constitutes positive bias. I NEVER said that we must "counter with someting negative," I said that we MUST INCLUDE information about the hate crime in surrounding areas in order to provide accurate and representative information. UCRGrad 22:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is this kind of reasoning you exercise that has disrupted and biased this article - selectivity in what is presented. I can work all day presenting verifiable facts about the diverse, overpriced, kid-scarring death trap that Disneyland is - claiming that this information is important because "good" information was already presented. Would one generally get that impression of Disneyland if they were to visit the place? Not at all; there would be negative aspects of Disneyland noticed and these should be addressed accordingly. What I'm trying to get at is if all the students atUC Riverside and the surrounding communities were to be asked for their take on the general atmosphere of hate crimes in their area, how many of them would find that topic significant enough to need mentioning in a professional encyclopedia?

1) It would not be appropriate to devote much space to how Disneyland is a "kid-scarring death grap" since this is clearly a non-mainstream assertion, and I doubt there is much merit to that statement. HOWEVER, if there was a large amount of verifiable information that truly proved these statements (doubtful), then appropriate space should be allocated. The UC Riverside article is different. There is a multitude of data on many aspects of UCR, and most are not highly favorable. 2) I honestly couldn't speculate as to what the general opinion of the students are about hate crime, but perhaps you could ask the African American gentleman who was assaulted by the white supremacists in an Inlane Empire park - they mention him in the article I reference along with many others. UCRGrad 22:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Practically none and you know that!  Diversity of the area is certainly justified and significant to mention - again, mentioning the lack of diversity in the surrounding area is a FACT worth mentioning and is not a positive or negative aspect.  If one were to live near the campus they may/may not notice the lack of diversity - honestly, it is still not the UCR community that lacks in diversity - it is the booney places like Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Homeland etc. that has a noticeable lack of diversity.  By your methods, the user researching UCR will read how UCR is diverse (which is very accurate!) and also read how racial tension is high and an incidence of hate crime is high (which is an extremely inaccurate representation of the area!).  

You have absolutely failed to substantiate that last sentence. Extremely inaccurate representation?? Based on who's data. The one in your head? We need STATS, man. And no more doing your own calculations (erroneously) and pretending like you've applied a statistical test and achieved significance. UCRGrad 22:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet according to your methods, both are significant and equal to be mentioned in the same manner on the same level of significance. This is biased through selectivity!

Yes, they should be. You can't mention either and not the other. Saying UCR is diverse and failing to mention the hate crime is a disservice to readers. Mentioning hate crime without talking about UCR's diversity is also inappropriate. UCRGrad 22:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

6,9) LOGICALLY INVALID. Whether or not the arguer lives in Riverside or is a current or former student at UCR does not constitute him or her disposed or "inherently biased" to support removing a negative aspect about UCR. Refrain from statements that are Ad hominem circumstantial as I have been careful not to fall into the trap of using Appeal to Majority statements to support my reasoning (a side note: again, I emphasize yielding to the majority since articles like these require many points of view for accuracy - I do not and will not state that the majority is always correct, nor do I state that residents and students always act in good faith when editing this entry). Pimpclinton 02:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone makes a conclusion using personal attack as a PREMISE. (e.g. you are stupid, therefore you are wrong). That is NOT the same thing is identifying likely factors that would bias an individual. It is a true statement that individuals who attend UCR, work for UCR, live in Riverside, etc. are more likely to prefer a positive slant to this article. Before you start throwing terms around like "logically invalid," make sure you actually understand logic. (Just as you tried to use the term "statistically significant" without applying a statistical test. I'm still waiting for you to bone up to this too.)

Anyway, we're not getting anywhere. What I'm hearing from you is that you don't think racial violence should be mentioned AT ALL. I'm a reasonable person, but honestly, all your reasons (every single one of them) are problematic. Thanks." UCRGrad 22:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding citations

Hey guys, I'm very new to Misplaced Pages (as a Wikipedian, anyways) and after using Misplaced Pages for years I decided I might as well make an account and pitch in. For this article I'd like to add a citation for the "smog belt", but I wanted to check before making any changes to this controversial topic. Is a local news rag like that an OK source for something like this? --ShadowGuy 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Such a citation would likely be okay, but only if the sentence is changed to state purely the facts that are justified by that citation. In other words, "The Riverside area is referred to as..." should become something more like "Local news sources have referred to the Riverside area as..." or possibly "The Riverside area has been called...". –Tifego _{04:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

I, for one, would like to see a source for the smog belt reference. Calwatch 08:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, feel free (ShadowGuy) to go ahead and add it. Don't worry too much about making a mistake, it's easily fixed if that happens. –Tifego _{16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

Looks good to me. –Tifego _{08:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)}

Remaining disputes

I was also wondering if anybody could give a summary of any remaining disputes over this article at present. My own interest in this page is that I know somebody who is going to UCR in the fall for grad school on a full ride, and I myself am looking into schools to transfer to from my junior college, so we both are interested in learning and exploring more about this school. Thanks! --ShadowGuy 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the dispute is still ongoing and not showing any indication of dying down. I suggest we start looking into mediation if the situation doesn't improve soon. –Tifego _{16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

As for a summary, I don't know exactly, but I think there is a concensus that most of the things currently in the article are true, but it is disputed whether the way those facts are being presented is neutral. (An overview of the argument against it being neutral is: In some places negative facts appear to be presented to make something unrelated look bad, and the contents of the article appear to be cherry-picked to put UCR in more of a negative light than a neutral statement of the relevant facts would put it.)

The most specific thing being disputed now is: Should the article explain that Riverside (the large region, in general) is known for racial violence, immediately after mention of the university's #4 ranking for diversity, despite that UCR itself is not at all known to share these problems of racial violence and that diversity is even not directly related to racial violence?

My own (and only) interest in this page is that it bothers me when I see a page on Misplaced Pages that looks to be so incredibly biased as this one was when I saw it (and it looks to be slowly approaching that state again).

–Tifego _{17:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

Tifego, I can't believe you're bringing this up again. I've already explained in at least 5 different places that a) UCR is integrated with its community, b) UCR students have broad exposure to their surrounding area (not just 1 block away), c) it is common for college publications (US News, Princeton, etc.) to discuss surrounding communities. I thougt that right after diversity was the most appropriate place to put information about racial violence. If you can suggset an alternate location, please do. ANYONE CAN SIT BACK AND CRITICIZE. WHY DON'T YOU TRY TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS TO HELP THE ARTICLE, RATHER THAN DEMEAN THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS.UCRGrad 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

But the fact is that UC Riverside has NO reported incidences of hate crimes. NONE. Please see this link. Calwatch 03:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I was explaining to ShadowGuy what the current dispute is, how is that demeaning and criticizing you? Let's focus on the article here... It's not necessary to provide a better alternative to point out that something is wrong. Maybe it would fit better near the “smog belt” section, or, at least, in its own sentence. –Tifego _{02:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)}

And Pimpclinton has already said he is planning to make some changes/additions once he has done enough research to back it up, maybe we should wait and see what he comes up with. –Tifego _{02:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)}

Actually, I think that we would not be having this inane conversation if Tigego would be less ignorant and more informed about the facts already presented in the discussion, rather than just recapitulating previously addressed arguments. It there is to be any progress in this forum then there must be thoughtful articulation of ideas, that is, you must formulate and explain your viewpoint. I think that everyone here respects your view, in including myself, however you must fully address the argument's of others before you can even begin to expect your peers to take you seriously.

It looks like you have some things to consider.

UnblockingTau 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop violating WP:NPA. –Tifego _{03:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)}

My comments don't violate WP:NPA.

UnblockingTau 17:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

UnblockingTau- I believe Tifego is referring to “...if Tifego would be less ignorant and more informed about the facts...." Pimpclinton 18:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If you just "believe," implying to are unsure, then why are you commenting?

UnblockingTau 22:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That, and the tone and effect of the comment as a whole, which concentrates entirely on a contributor rather than on content. I would say more about how little basis it has in reality, but... –Tifego _{19:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)}

Smog Study

I stand by my earlier edits.

I dispute the change of “Such conditions have been known to contribute to a variety of health effects associated with elevated levels of smog.”

While your argument for making this section more general because “statement that should be found in an entry about health effects due to smog in general” might be valid is some contexts, I think in the situation it is not.

Here are a few lines from the abstract of the journal article: “Whether exposure to air pollution adversely affects the growth of lung function during the period of rapid lung development that occurs between the ages of 10 and 18 years is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective study, we recruited 1759 children (average age, 10 years) from schools in 12 southern California communities and measured lung function annually for eight years.”

The referenced study is SPECIFICALLY focused on children in the INLAND EMPIRE; therefore it should be mentioned for full clarity.

UnblockingTau 22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because the article used the area in its research does not mean its findings only apply to INLAND EMPIRE SMOG. There are hundreds of studies on the health effects of smog and the findings of each are COMPARATIVE. It is not our job to list the health effects of smog, it is only our job to give insight into the current state of the environment around the school and POSSIBLY, IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY link to the health effects about smog - let the SMOG entry on Misplaced Pages do its job. Like I said above, unless there is something MAGICAL about the specific smog in the IE, that is, the smog around UCR is known for its adverse affects on children (whereas smog in other regions don't harm children), leave it generalized.

Pimpclinton, I'm worried that you're overextending yourself in terms of knowledge base again. With regard to smog, there are many many constituents, some are toxic, some have known health effects, others are not as harmful. Clinical studies that attempt to correlate environmental exposure and health are notoriously difficult and expensive to conduct, not to mention a methodological nightmare. If there was a well-conducted trial that is GENERALIZABLE to the specific population in question (i.e. the particular smog in Riverside, looking at health of children in Riverside), that is remarkably pertinent. Not only that, this study was done and peer-reviewed by the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably the TOP medical publication in the world. So YES, the smog in Riverside is known for adverse effects on children. Next time, if you're not even going to bother reading the article, don't comment on it. UCRGrad 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A side note- In fact, I am even somewhat opposed to even leaving the generalized statement on smog health effects in the main article at all AS IT IS NOT A FORUM FOR STATEMENTS THAT PROGRESS A POSITION, as selective bias does. Pimpclinton 22:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what yo'ure talking about. "Progressing a position?" "Selective bias????" You claim to be from Hemet. You know full well how bad the smog is in the Riverside area, and how it's the WORST IN THE NATION. Are you trying to sugar coat it? Or are you going to pull the same mumbo-jumbo and argue that "well, the studies don't look at UCR specifically, just Riverside. It's possible that the smog stops abruptly at Hinderaker Hall, and starts again at the Fine Arts building." Give us a break.UCRGrad 23:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely not what I am doing, accusations such as these do not belong here, they display immaturity, and it would be respectful of you to apologize. With regard to your first reply, I don't believe you are understanding what I am saying. Yielding to the fact that smog levels are high here is separate and independent of mentioning that smog affects little children! Please understand that concept before you continue reading. Okay, ready? I support the former, not the latter in this entry about UCR (not smog!). It is our job to explain the smog condition and give a verifiable source to support this notion. It is not our job to explain how little children will start coughing more if they live in Riverside! The smog entry on Misplaced Pages is responsible in explaining the intracies of smog dependent on location if it is true that smog affects children differently in the IE. However, again, you have inferred and interpreted articles to your liking. I have read the article, it does not discriminate between southern California children and children elsewhere exposed to smog. In fact, why don't you mossy on over to the article and cite where in the methods were children from other regions studied. There is no such dependent variable. But this is besides the point, smog data should still be kept on the Misplaced Pages smog entry.

UCRGrad and UnblockingTau, I ask that you cease reverting this section - revert wars will NOT prove your point! In addition, UCRGrad, it has come to my attention that you are pre-biased coming into this discussion and these talks. I pray this is not the case. I am afraid that mediation is our only solution as you simply do not understand how you are negatively impacting this article. Pimpclinton 23:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A better link displaying this pre-bias. I hope this is not you, this is disheartening seeing such a misrepresentation of UCR on Misplaced Pages. I will wait for mediation, you are not understanding the points I am making; this is ridiculous. Pimpclinton 23:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you've got to be kidding me. I guess the name UCRGrad is so unique that anyone who uses it must be me. IN REALITY, I believe that I've made some excellent points, so excllent, in fact, that you didn't even address them (probably cuz you've been nailed on several points, especially how you falsified how your got statistical significance)....to the point where you became desperate to find ANYTHING to counter with...to the point where you GOOGLED the name "UCRGrad," looking for dirt!!?? THEN YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO ACCUSE A THIRD PARTY, UNBLOCKTAU, OF IMMATURITY AND LACK OF RESPECT???? Why don't you look in the mirror, please.UCRGrad 02:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it relevant to mention that UCLA is in Los Angeles, or that UCSB near the beach? According to your reasoning-- it's not, because those things should be addressed in other WIKI articles. Should an article on a university talk about that campus's environment. I would challenge you to find an article on any campus that does not.

So when a study that specifically identifies Riverside as a subject and comes to a conclusion that you don't like, you chop it up to "IT IS NOT OUR JOB."

Fact: A study found that Riverside air can be harmful to children's lungs over the certain time.Period!

"WHERE IN THE METHODS WERE CHILDREN FROM OTHER REGIONS STUDIED."-- NOT relevant

I never thought I would say this, but I guess I agree with UCRgrad here. It now becomes increasingly clear that you, Pimpclinton, have a bias and do not want an potentially negative aspects of UCR discussed.

UnblockingTau 00:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad/UnblockingTau and Pimpclinton, will you accept mediation? Mediation is where both parties of a disagreement attempt to reach an agreement with the help of a neutral third party. –Tifego _{01:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)}

-Tigego (aka Pimpclinton and Regcider): It depends. Let me think about it.

UnblockingTau 01:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what?

And don't make baseless accusations of sockpuppetry. I wouldn't object to having it checked. Would you?

–Tifego _{02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)}

Fact: A study found that Riverside air can be harmful to children's lungs over the certain time.Period! Wrong! Read the conclusion again, they did not conclude that, did they. Let me explain something to you as I am familiar with laboratory research and am currently involved in the therapeutic response certain drugs have on a disease we’ve genetically predisposed in lab mice. It's the ability of two distant but related species to elicit “comparativeness.” This study was not designed to show how susceptible Riverside children are to high levels of smog – this is where both you and UCRGrad deviate from reality and begin formulating interpretations that are incorrect. This study is used to show how high levels of smog anywhere can be harmful to children. Why would any research group put so much time, effort, and money into a project with such limited results? They don’t! Now, UCRGrad has brought up a more substantiated counter-point – that Riverside air and smog in general has different particulate composition and that it is for this reason that only Riverside children are subjected to such conditions. I call bullsh*t. Give me one verifiable source that supports the idea that particulate composition is responsible for this notion, or even that variable between cities and regions.

Even if you did produce such data (which yes, I have searched for and still can't locate), you would still have to yield support for the notion that this statement regarding young children has any relevance to UC Riverside and its students, whom are for the most part "adults." It is perfectly clear to me, UnblockingTau/UCRGrad, that this statement is impertinent in every way to the discussion of smog levels in Riverside.

I would also kindly ask you, UCRGrad/UnblockingTau/any other sockpuppet nick you wish to use to refrain from using such statements as "sugar-coating" as you accusing me of "positive-biasing" a statement is in every manner exactly identical to me accusing you of "negative-biasing" a statement. Reason through this; accusations like these are for the intellectually flaccid (you both wouldn't happen to be UCR grads, yah?). It is also for this reason that I fully support authoritative intervention.

P.S. I'm fully available to be proven sockpuppet-free, try me. Pimpclinton 03:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with mediation. Calwatch 03:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote: “Let me explain something to you as I am familiar with laboratory research and am currently involved in the therapeutic response certain drugs have on a disease we’ve genetically predisposed in lab mice.”

Wow, that sounds pretty complex. Is your job to separate males and females after a litter is born and then set up the appropriate breeding cages? Or is your job to make sure all the mice have water, and the cages are cleaned appropriately?

In any case. So you have a few TG or KO mice that you give drugs to and then you look for a response. In these experiments, you need controls (non TG or KO littermates), but this is very different type of study than the clinical one such as the in the NEJM, so bringing this up is not even relevant.

Quote: “It's the ability of two distant but related species to elicit “comparativeness.” This study was not designed to show how susceptible Riverside children are to high levels of smog – this is where both you and UCRGrad deviate from reality and begin formulating interpretations that are incorrect.”

I don’t think it matters in this context if the smog in Uganda or Texas can cause the same lung problems.

The statement: Researchers have found under that under X conditions that the polluted conditions, such as those found in Riverside, have been found to damage children’s lungs over Y length of time. ---

Here's a question for you. Is this statement true or not? Yes or no?

If you are in science as you say, you know that this doesn’t PROVE Riverside air, or any air, will do this to lungs. A study simply PROVIDES EVIDENCE to SUPPORT something.

In addition.

Quote: "Give me one verifiable source that supports the idea that particulate composition is responsible for this notion, or even that variable between cities and regions."

I am not required to do additional research to support side-stepping points that have no place here.

UnblockingTau 11:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

1) NO personal attacks. You have no idea what I do personally it is irrelevant to this discussion. I believe you were already warned about no PV and it will surely not help your case when mediation arrives.

2) Bringing it up is relevant because it gives a good example of comparativeness (here we go, I have to now further explain what this means.) In the lab, our goal is not to prove that the certain strain of mice or mice in general show responsiveness to a particular treatment. Our goal is to show how that disease can be suppressed using that treatment in hopes for further studies in humans and other animals (for veterinary purposes for example). Why would we only want to prove that a certain strain of mouse shows a response and that it is limited to that one strain? That's ridiculous, just as ridiculous as you trying to support the notion that this study is designed specifically Riverside children. One way to prove this is to show how particulate composition is significantly different in Riverside and that these results don't "bleed over" into other regions with "green smog" or "smog type II" (I'm making that up). BUT, you can't produce that data, so as it stands – this study was designed to show how elevated levels of smog (caused by traffic pollution as opposed to volcanic smog) anywhere can be dangerous to children. Read the conclusion again; that is what they concluded.

3) The statement you give is irrelevant because it is not what the study concluded. Inferring false results and self-interpretation of a source will not help you win your case.

4) You ignored a very valid statement I made: Even if you did produce such data (which yes, I have searched for and still can't locate), you would still have to yield support for the notion that this statement regarding young children has any relevance to UC Riverside and its students, whom are for the most part "adults."

5) I have virtually repeated what I already wrote to you. You are quick to respond without understanding the study or understanding what I am explaining - which is why I support mediation. Pimpclinton 14:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Briefly. I think you are making this issue a bit more complicated than it should be.

The conclusion of the study: "CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that current levels of air pollution have chronic, adverse effects on lung development in children from the age of 10 to 18 years, leading to clinically significant deficits in attained FEV(1) as children reach adulthood."

The Riverside area was part of the study. Therefore, the air in Riverside has been found to have "adverse effects on lung development in children from the age of 10 to 18 years."

I do not have to show that Riverside air is significantly different any other polluted area.

UnblockingTau 16:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This issue is only complicated to you! The fact that they used Riverside versus any other region is with smog is insignificant. The conclusion does not state Riverside specifically because it its results are "comparative." In other words, children living in any smoggy region are subject to this conclusion. In addition, and this is important so pay attention, Riverside people are subject to findings about smog that were not conducted in Riverside - but this is not a forum to list health effects of smog, despite wherever it was conducted! Therefore, (1) the results in this study do not reference Riverside ONLY because they're not concerned with Riverside ONLY, (2) this is not a forum to discuss the results of a paper conducted in Riverside, this isn't even a forum to list the health effects of any study that can be applied to Riverside - this is a forum to give factual data about the smog conditions affecting UC Riverside, and (3) the majority of UC Riverside students aren’t children nor do they have children! Pimpclinton 16:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Quote: “In other words, children living in any smoggy region are subject to this conclusion.”

-That sounds fine to me. UC Riverside is a severly polluted region, therefore this conclusion is applicable. In addition, this study was in Riverside and the regions around it.

Quote: “(1) the results in this study do not reference Riverside ONLY because they're not concerned with Riverside ONLY.”

-The results do not have to reference Riverside specifically in order for them to apply to Riverside.

Are you going to tell me with a straight face that this study and its conclusion is not applicable to Riverside just because the article doesn’t focus on the city?

Quote: “2) this is not a forum to discuss the results of a paper conducted in Riverside, this isn't even a forum to list the health effects of any study that can be applied to Riverside…”

--Why not?

Quote: “…this is a forum to give factual data about the smog conditions affecting UC Riverside…”

-I absolutely agree.

Quote: “3) the majority of UC Riverside students aren’t children nor do they have children!”

--Campus and community will always been integrated. Thus, whatever affects the community is likely impact the campus, in one way or another, and that makes it fair game for encyclopedia article.

I wish you well in your research project.

UnblockingTau 16:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pimpclinton.

I would like to respectfully ask you not to respond unless you have some new points to make. It seems that we have been going around circles and it's a waste of our time for both of us. I feel I have already addressed all of your concerns and points, and not convinced by your arguments. You have not made a good case for why the smog sentence should be changed. Additionally, you have implied that you are an authoritative figure and made it part of your argument by explaining an experimental scenario not even remotely applicable to the study being discussed. This severely weakened your case it because you were essentially grasping at anything that might give you a foothole in this debate, rather than formulating more sound arguments. I would be happy to discuss things further if you have new arguments. Sincerely, UnblockingTau 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary young lad, I am making progress! And by the way, if you chose not to participate in this debate, then you can leave - do not make any further edits. There are many people in this forum that disagree with your points and discussion (with or without mediation) is the only option. So don't give me any crap like that, nobody's truely objective and nobody's truely free of ignorance - first step to clearer thinking is admitting that. Now where were we-

1) Okay! Now we're getting somewhere. First, I want you to analyze Quote 1. Ask yourself: what does Pimpclinton mean by "any smoggy region"? Could this conclusion be applicable to any smoggy region – in the world. Would you expect to find health hazards pertaining to children living in the UK under UK smoggy conditions?

2) Next, I want you to reeeaaallyy analyze Quote 2. Think it through, try to discern what I am talking about - are you perhaps not understanding it and simply quick to reply. What does "Riverside ONLY" mean to you? Could you be stating what I’ve been saying this whole time? Is this statement true: "the results of any study do not have to reference Riverside specifically in order for them to apply to Riverside." How about this statement: "The results of this study do not have to reference (insert name of smoggy city found anywhere in the world here) specifically in order for them to apply to (name of smoggy city)." If the results of this study are universal, should they be mentioned in every Misplaced Pages article related to cities that have smog?

3) Next, I want you to analyze Quote 3, ask yourself: why wouldn't an encyclopedia entry on "UC Riverside" be the proper place for a study that was merely conducted in Riverside that applies to Riverside? What about the hundreds of other studies that apply to Riverside? Why is it important to only reference data pertaining to UC Riverside / Riverside? If I were trying to persuade or dissuade people from coming to UC Riverside, what would I say after giving this data? Does over-emphasizing a point display bias towards that point in the same way underemphasizing/suppressing a point does? If one wished to find out the research that has gone into figuring out the health effects of smog, would they type "UC Riverside" in the Misplaced Pages search box?

4) Quote 5: This is one of the most troubling replies you’ve given. Have you ever heard of the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, where every actor/actress can be linked to Kevin Bacon through a maximum of 6 people? In a roundabout way (no pun intended), this is what you’ve stated. I want to remind you of the focus of this entry; it is about "UC Riverside." Giving justification for this statement by essentially stating that there are some children that live around the campus is "retarded" to say the least. However, this quote (to me and everybody else on here who would like to see the bias in this entry removed) is, in fact, not a valid counterpoint made by myself. My goal in this debate is not to show you that this specific line is biased, my goal in this debate is that practically any line given after the given smog data is biased. Smog conditions are bad in this area; this was already given in the data presented before the line about the children. Those here desiring to keep this paragraph objective realize that over-emphasis (with or without verifiable data) is in its own splendor – biased. Pimpclinton 18:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the responses you gave, especially to my Quote 2, prove to me you're not understanding the points I have been making. So essentially, every time I rewrite my points, you're getting it for the first time! So no crap about me restating the obvious because it's not yet obvious to you. Pimpclinton 18:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I will address a few of your points. I don't have time right now to address them all.

Quote: “Okay! Now we're getting somewhere. First, I want you to analyze Quote 1. Ask yourself: what does Pimpclinton mean by "any smoggy region"? --I am taking that to mean any region with high level of smog, such as the Riverside area, where the air is so thick that you can cut it with a knife.

Quote: “Could this conclusion be applicable to any smoggy region – in the world. Would you expect to find health hazards pertaining to children living in the UK under UK smoggy conditions?” --I don’t know if it would be applicable to children living in the UK, because I don’t specific pollutants that are there vs. in the Riverside area, where the study was conducted. I assume that the specific pollutant type would be important.

Quote: “Next, I want you to reeeaaallyy analyze Quote 2. Think it through, try to discern what I am talking about - are you perhaps not understanding it and simply quick to reply. What does "Riverside ONLY" mean to you? --Riverside ONLY would refer to a study solely conducted about Riverside and not any other city, this is, in most cases, completely impractical. However, in the NEJM article, the authors focused several communities with high amounts of smog, including Riverside. The made a conclusion based upon a summation of data. Since they didn’t differentiate the “Riverside area” from the general data it is reasonable to say that conclusions of the WHOLE study apply to the that one particular area. If somehow, the Riverside data differed drastically from the rest comminity it would surely be noted. In addition, all/most the communites studied had similar pollutants and levels, thus Riverside did not stand out as the city on the hill were everyone was suddenly unaffected by the wrath of air particulates, etc.

Quote: " How about this statement: "The results of this study do not have to reference (insert name of smoggy city found anywhere in the world here) specifically in order for them to apply to (name of smoggy city)." If the results of this study are universal, should they be mentioned in every Misplaced Pages article related to cities that have smog?” --This is absolutely asking the wrong question. The results of this study might be universal, that is in areas where similar pollutants and conditions exist (probably similar climate as well). The polluted communites studied in the NEJM paper all have similar types and levels of pollutes (i.e. that are all in the same area), GENERALLY speaking. I don’t know and its not relevant whether this should be mentioned in every Wiki article on cites that have smog, it would depend on many factors like the context and the type of article.

Quote: Next, I want you to analyze Quote 3, ask yourself: why wouldn't an encyclopedia entry on "UC Riverside" be the proper place for a study that was merely conducted in Riverside that applies to Riverside? What about the hundreds of other studies that apply to Riverside? Why is it important to only reference data pertaining to UC Riverside / Riverside? If I were trying to persuade or dissuade people from coming to UC Riverside, what would I say after giving this data? Does over-emphasizing a point display bias towards that point in the same way underemphasizing/suppressing a point does? If one wished to find out the research that has gone into figuring out the health effects of smog, would they type "UC Riverside" in the Misplaced Pages search box? --I absolutely think that is necessary and appropriate to include this data in an article are UC Riverside. UCR is unique in that is has an infamously high amount of air pollution, more than most other universities in the country, I would guess. The issue is not about persuading or dissuading anyone, it about giving an accurate picture. I don’t think that average someone interested in smog would type “UC Riverside,” but the campus should certainly be listed under the entry “Smog” or “Smogiest Universities.”

Quote 5: “This is one of the most troubling replies you’ve given. Have you ever heard of the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, where every actor/actress can be linked to Kevin Bacon through a maximum of 6 people? In a roundabout way (no pun intended), this is what you’ve stated. I want to remind you of the focus of this entry; it is about "UC Riverside." Giving justification for this statement by essentially stating that there are some children that live around the campus is "retarded" to say the least. However, this quote (to me and everybody else on here who would like to see the bias in this entry removed) is, in fact, not a valid counterpoint made by myself.” --I can justify it further by saying that this journal paper shows the that Riverside area air is very unhealthy, more so than other universities. Every aspect of life, campus, community, etc is affected. Students and their families come to Riverside for a substantial period of time. To ignore this would be, as you say, retarded. --Thanks for not bringing up those references to transgenic mice and comparative analysis, because that was one of the most “retarded” arguments I have ever read. That’s not an insult, that’s a compliment. UnblockingTau 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

UnblockingTau, the problem is you're so fixated on this article being conducted in Riverside that you're not thinking outside the box. I will try to break it down even further.

Quotes: --I am taking that to mean any region with high level of smog, such as the Riverside area, where the air is so thick that you can cut it with a knife. --I don’t know if it would be applicable to children living in the UK, because I don’t specific pollutants that are there vs. in the Riverside area, where the study was conducted. I assume that the specific pollutant type would be important.

1) When I say "any smoggy region" I mean: any region with industrial-related (not volcanic) smog. This includes Riverside. This equally also includes any smoggy region. There are many smoggy regions around the world. These smoggy regions are affected by this study equally as Riverside is. If you go to the smog page on Misplaced Pages you'll realize that the smog between regions is insignificant to mention - because it is. Particle composition does not vary significantly between smoggy regions. This paper does not mention Riverside in its conclusion because this is the general assumption. You need to expand your mind and treat this study as if it were Riverside-independent, that the results are universal. The strain of mouse I use in my lab is insignificant in the same manner as Riverside is insignificant in this study - it's just another smoggy region in a list of smoggy regions, they just so happened to pick Riverside and the surrounding areas to conduct the study in. They picked Riverside because of it's high smog level - but they could have picked any place with high smog levels. This is the concept of "comparativeness" (I want you to look up this term before you reply). In other words, the data collected for the mouse is comparative to humans just as the smog in Riverside is "comparative" to other smoggy areas. That is, we treat mice with a chemical compound and obeserve it's effects not so we can solely cure the disease in the mouse, but rather so we hopefully can use the compound to cure the disease in humans. Comparative - the mouse acts as a human substitute but the disease occurs in the same manner... comparatively. Do you understand now why I use my research model to try to explain this to you?

Quote: --Riverside ONLY would refer to a study solely conducted about Riverside and not any other city, this is, in most cases, completely impractical. However, in the NEJM article, the authors focused several communities with high amounts of smog, including Riverside. The made a conclusion based upon a summation of data. Since they didn’t differentiate the “Riverside area” from the general data it is reasonable to say that conclusions of the WHOLE study apply to the that one particular area. If somehow, the Riverside data differed drastically from the rest comminity it would surely be noted. In addition, all/most the communites studied had similar pollutants and levels, thus Riverside did not stand out as the city on the hill were everyone was suddenly unaffected by the wrath of air particulates, etc.

Ok, false, when I say "Riverside ONLY" I mean - Riverside versus the world. In other words, I am assuming the study was not solely Riverside city, but Riverside and surrounding communities. But disregard this misunderstanding of what I meant because you actually address Riverside vs. the world in the next segment --

My Quote: " How about this statement: "The results of this study do not have to reference (insert name of smoggy city found anywhere in the world here) specifically in order for them to apply to (name of smoggy city)." If the results of this study are universal, should they be mentioned in every Misplaced Pages article related to cities that have smog?”

Your Reply --This is absolutely asking the wrong question. The results of this study might be universal, that is in areas where similar pollutants and conditions exist (probably similar climate as well). The polluted communites studied in the NEJM paper all have similar types and levels of pollutes (i.e. that are all in the same area), GENERALLY speaking. I don’t know and its not relevant whether this should be mentioned in every Wiki article on cites that have smog, it would depend on many factors like the context and the type of article.

This is false. You are now inferring and interpreting independent variables that are assumed constant in the conclusion of this article. No original research is allowed here! We must take for face value what this article concludes - there is no mention of climate, particle composition, etc. because these variables are taken as constants so that the results are comparative between regions around the world that have high smog. It has to be interpreted that way because the results do not specifically mention Riverside and surrounding areas as the only areas these findings apply. If you'd like to prove that there are independent variables unaccounted for, such as climate and particle composition, replicate this study! Replicate the materials and methods, do the study in multiple regions, and compare regions across the globe. OTHERWISE, do NOT make this assumption. So as stands: this article is universal and applies to all areas with similar levels of smog. Period. It has to be interpreted that way, I'm sorry you don't see that.

My Quote: Next, I want you to analyze Quote 3, ask yourself: why wouldn't an encyclopedia entry on "UC Riverside" be the proper place for a study that was merely conducted in Riverside that applies to Riverside? What about the hundreds of other studies that apply to Riverside? Why is it important to only reference data pertaining to UC Riverside / Riverside? If I were trying to persuade or dissuade people from coming to UC Riverside, what would I say after giving this data? Does over-emphasizing a point display bias towards that point in the same way underemphasizing/suppressing a point does? If one wished to find out the research that has gone into figuring out the health effects of smog, would they type "UC Riverside" in the Misplaced Pages search box?

Your Reply: --I absolutely think that is necessary and appropriate to include this data in an article are UC Riverside. UCR is unique in that is has an infamously high amount of air pollution, more than most other universities in the country, I would guess. The issue is not about persuading or dissuading anyone, it about giving an accurate picture. I don’t think that average someone interested in smog would type “UC Riverside,” but the campus should certainly be listed under the entry “Smog” or “Smogiest Universities.”

This is where you simply cannot be helped; where naive realism + stubbornness takes it's toll on objectivity. The only action I'd suggest is checking out a Britannica and study their methods of writing an encyclopedia entry. Hell, why don't you start at the N's for "naive realism." What else can I say - you say I'm not over-emphasizing, I say you are. We need mediation. In the meantime, why don't you start a new Misplaced Pages entry entitled "Smogiest Universities," haha.

--I can justify it further by saying that this journal paper shows the that Riverside area air is very unhealthy, more so than other universities. Every aspect of life, campus, community, etc is affected. Students and their families come to Riverside for a substantial period of time. To ignore this would be, as you say, retarded.

--Thanks for not bringing up those references to transgenic mice and comparative analysis, because that was one of the most “retarded” arguments I have ever read. That’s not an insult, that’s a compliment.

The first statement is not substantiated. In fact, I know you don't know because you said earlier that "you think." C'mon man, "Students and their families come to Riverside for a substantial period of time" - that's your support for saying that "air in this region can damage the lungs of children"?? On a "UC Riverside" entry??? This statement moronic to say the least. Face it, you have no clear support for why children's health needs to be mentioned on a UC Riverside entry! The notion that families bring their kids to visit their student attending UCR is moronic! It's such a jackball statement that I'm cry-laughing right now. And about your non-personal attack - did you finally understand it's significance? It's there buddy; it's clear, it's articulate, it makes complete sense. So put that in your spank bank for later bro. Pimpclinton 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

Nope. There's a chart in the article that shows the level of smog in Riverside vs. other southern CA communities. It's amongst the highest. In the UCR article, I reported just that, nothing more. Nothing inferred or calculated (unlike your little blunder earlier). The data is right there. Secondly, the study clearly shows that children exposed to smog of the Riverside level have lung damage, as measured by clinical endpoints of lung function. Again, data is right there. NO inference. NO interpretation. You do basic science lab research. This is MEDICAL literature. You clearly don't have the background or experience to interpret these types of publications - I think you should find an area that you're more comfortable with. You're wasting people's time here, because you're clearly wrong. UCRGrad 02:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad, you're not following the conversation. We're not talking about comparing Riverside vs. other so cal communities, we're talking about the independent variables mentioned - climate and particulate composition - and why this article assumes those as NON-variable according to the conclusion. It is for this reason that the conclusion applies universally. If you're going to jump into this discussion (assuming U.T isn't your sock) then understand what is being said. Pimpclinton 03:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

Let me get this straight. You're saying that I don't understand the discussion between you and UnblockTau, yet you're now accusing me of being the same person as UnblockTau???? Is this the kind of logic you employ to mask your inability to interpret medical literature? UCRGrad 03:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, way to run away from the issue at hand there. Attack the messenger, very mature and logical. Pimpclinton 03:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

Additionally (and perhaps ironically) that's actually not an illogical assumption because I don't believe even UnblockingTau understands the discussion at hand. So put that in your spank bank for later Pimpclinton 03:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

I actually think pimpclinton is confused. His whole argument is convoluted like the proximal tubule. UnblockingTau 03:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Good, because honestly, you write a lot and don't say very much (another indication that you probably don't do any scientific writing.) Why don't you do me a favor and just summarize in one paragraph (clearly and concisely) why you don't think the NEJM data should notbe included in this article. Be sure to address the fact that the data is directly generalizable to Riverside because Riverside was one of its study populations. Thanks. You can use the space below: UCRGrad 03:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad's comments on the smog

I go away for a day and this is the crap that ensues. I'm going to repeat what I've said previously. The NEJM study was conducted SPECIFICALLY in various southern CA communities. Riverside was one of them. Therefore, the results are MOST GENERALIZABLE to the areas and the populations that were in the actual study. Again, Riverside was one of them. We can say with a great deal of certainty that the air IN RIVERSIDE damages lungs in children. It is immaterial whether other communities were covered or what the primary objectives of the authors were. For someone who claims to have a background in research, you seem to know every little about statistical analysis and reporting of scientific evidence -- I'd be willing to be that your role in the lab is a minor one at best. Now to address one of your only reasonable counterarguments, anyone with basic knowledge of interpreting scientific publications could tell you that you could NOT necessarily generalize the results of the study to "children in the UK," as you suggest. The study population was various SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA communities, not the UK. In order to generalize to the UK, you would have to establish a) an analogous level and composition of smog, and b) a similar child population with similar health care, etc. I shouldn't have to explain this basic information to someone who claims to be a researcher. Care to bone up to your blunder about your false claim of statistical significance yet?

I have already said this a thousand times and Pimpclinton NEVER addresses it: Pertinent facts about the environment/city surrounding a university ARE RELEVANT to an encyclopedia article. This includes weather/pollution/whatever. Respected publications such as the Princeton Review, US News, and even college brochures all discuss aspects of the area surrouding a school. UCRGrad 02:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but is the smog mentioned in these publications? And what, then, about other areas with bad air? Do these publications mention the same thing about Rice University (in polluted Houston)? The soot from the steel plants near Carnegie Mellon? I think that a couple of sentences is warranted, but a full paragraph is a bit much. Calwatch 03:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Calwatch, bro, let me ask you something. Are Rice University and Carnegie Mellon located in the #1 most polluted metropolitan area in the nation? Negative. Is UC Riverside? Yes. Should we be mentioning unique and notable aspects of universities? Yes. (If not, I will be happy to systematically delete all unique and notable aspects of UCR, and I promise you won' tbe happy with the results.) 909er 21:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

Could everyone (who is not already doing so) please:

• Calm down - Try reading WP:CIVIL, or leave this alone for a while.
• Be brief - Is there really so much to say about this? Every time I check back after a day or so this talk page has grown huge, accompanied by an apparent lack of progress in coming to an agreement.

UCRGrad: Have you decided whether to accept or decline mediation?

Pimpclinton: I think you might be misunderstanding what "mediation" means. It doesn't "arrive" and judge people; it's a cooperative process. Compare WP:M, WP:RFC, and WP:RFAR.

–Tifego _{05:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)}

I accept mediation and am fairly certain what it is but let me clear it up with you - a mediator is a third party whose goal is to facilitate listening and understanding of the other side's points. That's exactly what I need right now - (when I get requests from UCRGrad on clarity on the issue, quick replies that don't even show an understanding of the conversation or something I have stated, friends reading my replies saying I'm one of the most articulate debaters they've encountered - I kinda know why I'm not getting through to the opposing side). I'll wait for mediation before going any further in this discussion. Please email me when one has arrived as I probably won't be checking this board that frequently until Thursday 4/27. Pimpclinton 05:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

There you go. Your friends are telling you that your replies superb and clear. Friends are biased dude. It's like a mom of a Down Syndrome kid who tells her son that he's the smartest boy in the 8th grade. Biased. So my advice: get some more opinions, because, man, I don't think it's clear to anyone here what you're saying on this board.

Have a nice day.

Insert-Belltower 15:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think only mediation, or some kind of third party intervention, could save this article right now. I also disagree with UCRGrad on his views on mentioning both racism and the smog in the UCR article. Is smog mentioned for Rice? Baylor College of Medicine? Any of the NYC universities? Is gang warfare mentioned in USC? The inland empire might have some incidences of hate crimes, but are there any that occur on the UCR campus at all? Why is there such a NPOV in the Student Life section? Dandanxu 20:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a past participant in this discussion (which I subsequently got sick of due to UCRGrad's and Insert-Belltower's obvious unwillingness to participate with any integrity; feel free to look back in the archives) and I'm just chiming in to say that you guys/gals will probably need more than mediation to get this article anywhere near NPOV. Arbitration or some sort of administrative intervention is more likely to work. At the risk of breaking more Misplaced Pages guidelines, I will say that these guy(s) are bent on a specific aim with no qualms as to what they need to do to achieve it. I think those of you that are in serious debates trying to nail down points in exhaustiveness need to know this, as when you do manange to succeed, they will insert more patently negative stuff to "balance out" the article. Start again from square one. Or they will simply just talk around your arguments and throw a tantrum accusing you of being uncivil, or some other inconsequential thing, and using that to supposedly justify everything they will then do in the next edit. One last tip for all of you is that you cannot take his citations at face value as they have been either unacceptable under Misplaced Pages guidelines as reliable sources (urbandictionary.com, a discussion forum, and uncited Misplaced Pages article, notably), or cherry-pickings of info that misrepresent the overall opinions of the reliable sources (Princeton Review and US News & World Reports Colleges 2006) in their pursuit of providing "fair and balanced" information. I recommend exploring those sources to see what they really have to say about UCR, and maybe even cite the positive/neutral passages from them. --DtEW 07:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

what do you suppose we do then? 138.23.21.216 23:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edits & Suggestions, grouped together

(I'm not quite sure where I'm supposed to mention this... but I also changed the pronounciation of Thomas Haider. Carol Moffett (pre-med advisor at UCR, so an expert on the Thomas Haider program I presume), told me it is pronounced hi-der and not hay-ter as the article says. It's really just pronounced exactly like it looks like. I don't know where people got this "hater" business from. I've only heard of it being pronounced hi-der and I've known enough people in the actual program. Dandanxu 19:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The photo of the UV Towers at the very top of the article seems to imply that the UV Towers are official school-owned housing. Perhaps a picture of Pentland, Lothian, A&I, Bannockburn, IV or Stonehaven (actual real school housing) would be more pertinent? Dandanxu 20:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If only 4% of UCR students are in sororities or fraternities, why on earth is a picture of a sorority girl on the UCR site? Obviously, 4% is not a good representation of the overall school. I have since removed the picture. Dandan 02:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of putting a picture with the caption of "construction with typical building in the front and back" why don't we just put a picture of a typical building? Something like Physical Sciences, Bourns II or the new Biological Sciences building. Dandan 02:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why put the phrase "often limited to D.O and third-tier programs as according to MDApplicants.com statistics"? First of all, D.O. is a completely different medical philosophy altogether. Graduates of DO schools are licensed practitioners just like MD graduates, the difference often is in how they practice (DO tends to churn out more primary care, etc). These are not comparable in terms of "ranking", since DO & MD are just simply... different. Finally, MDApplicants.com can't be used as a source. It's self-reported which is a statistical fallacy, not to mention the results could be entirely bogus (it's alike not being able to cite wikipedia, b/c honestly, anyone could've edited it). Also, search for UC Riverside and you get 8 responses. Are we seriously going to consider a sample size of EIGHT PEOPLE? Finally, out of those 8 people, here are the schools they are respectively going to (or at least, saying they're going to go to): - UMich - uniformed services - SUNY upstate - drexel/medical college of wisconsin - virginia commonwealth uni - UCR/UCLA - western uni of health sciences - george washington uni. First off, lets establish that just getting INTO medical school is a huge achievement in itself. MOST applicants don't get in at all. Out of the 8 listed on MDApplicants, all 8 got in, and half of them got into very good, highly ranked schools. Not only does this statement not belong in this article, it doesn't hold true at all under further scrutiny. Dandan 18:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is being VANDALIZED

Yes, vandalized, yo...by people who are obviously either students of UCR, affiliated with UCR, cohorts of UCR students, whatever. How come people ONLY want to delete bad things about UCR? Like the smog...and the racism in Riverside. Could you people be any more obvious about it? Look at how many anonymous changes they are....if you trace half of the IP addresses, they turn up RIVERSIDE, CA and UCR DORMS, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if half you guys were sockpuppets. 909er 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Report it then, if you really think it's vandalism. –Tifego _{05:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)}

I don't go to UCR. In fact, several months ago, this article was in a completely different direction (check the talk archives), when someone personally attacked me for putting information about the lack of selectivity at UC Riverside. However, there is a difference between whitewashing the school (this article six months ago) and blackballing the school (this article today). The article is not as bad as it once was, but it still has a long way to go to be truly NPOV. Calwatch 03:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem circumstantial- Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic.

I am here to see that bias is removed from this entry. (In other words, the term "vandalism" is relative and subjective when contrasted between the two different perspectives we share.)

Again, I must remind anybody here wishing to state that one side is here to "sugar-coat" the entry, the rest of us can equally state that you're only here to "sour-coat" the entry. Both cases are logically incorrect.

I, like others here, are open and willing to be investigated for sockpuppettry, how about you? Pimpclinton 03:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC).

Yo, man. Since I'm on a roll here, I'm still waiting for you to respond to allegations that you falsified data to support your arguments against adding information about the smog. Is this true? 909er 03:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an alumni of UCR (and unless his/her handle is a complete misnomer, UCRGrad is too -- so apparently not all UCR-affiliated people are into deleting bad things). I personally initially hated the idea of coming to UCR, mainly because of stereotypes propagated by articles such as this. Three years and a bachelors later, I realized alot of the negativity was unwarranted and that opportunities are abound here just like any other UC campus. I'll be the first to admit that there are many problems, that it's not UCLA or Berkeley and it's still a whiles away - but this place deserves a fair chance. At the very least, it deserves an unbiased wikipedia article - with relevant information, unbiased statistics, and a fair representation of what the campus actually is. Dandan 03:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

909er/UCRGrad - please stop using all bold text. Additionally, a new (and simplified) discussion on the smog/child comments has been initiated. Please see the discussion below. Unless you have something constructive to say I'll simply ignore your immaturity in this discussion. Pimpclinton 04:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC).

Princeton Review lists & rankings

Concerning the statement; "In 2005, the Princeton Review ranked UC Riverside among the bottom twenty universities for "Professors Get Low Marks ," "Professors Make Themselves Scarce," and "Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses". " I just wanted to mention that the Princeton Review also ranks UCLA among the bottom twenty universities for those exact three categories (see http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/rankings.asp?listing=1023373&ltid=1&intbucketid=). These rankings are not listed on the UCLA wiki article. My question is, why are they listed on UC Riverside's? Dandan 03:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that Princeton Review also lists UCR as one amongst the "Best Western Colleges" and "America's Best Value College" lists. If a point has to be made about three negative lists, wouldn't it make sense to make the same point about two positive lists from SAME PAGE of the the SAME SOURCE? Yet, that past edit was reverted for no good reason whatsoever. Go figure, right? --DtEW 07:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I figured, DtEW, so I have changed the article to list the points from the positive lists too. Hopefully nobody will revert to the old version, especially since there's simply no logical reason to do so. Dandan 09:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

One important point...

Perusing through the Princeton Review lists (registration is required, BTW), one thing struck me: The lists are selected among the best 361 colleges as ranked by Princeton, not among a representative sample of all universities in the US. So it's not telling the whole story if we state that UCR is among the worst in the nation for teaching quality and professor availability. Though it may be appropriate to include such statistics, they should be placed in their proper context. szyslak (t, c, e) 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I argue that it's not appropiate to include such statistics at all. If you look at other schools that also listed on these lists, none of their wiki articles (even those schools with very comprehensive wikipedia articles, such as UCLA), these statistics or, as I would call them, very informal rankings, are not mentioned. Why should they be mentioned on the UCR wikipedia? Dandan 17:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Space for UCRGrad's Clear and Concise Reasons for why NEJM Data should be included

The burden of proof is on you sir for it is your addition to the encyclopedic entry. Remember: we are arguing on two different playing fields: (1) why the latter part ("and that the air in this region can damage the lungs of children") should stay; and only if number 1 is found irrelevant (2) why two sets of data on smog conditions in Riverside/UCR are necessary and not over-emphasizing a point. I suggest not arguing the latter until the former is proven irrelevant to this encyclopedic entry (as one could simply use the former to support the latter). Pimpclinton 05:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

Yo, man. The "burden of proof" is on why YOU think information should be removed!!! Everytime you delete someone's work, you should give a reason. For instance, if i wanted to delete the first 50 lines, I would be obliged to give a rationale, just as YOU are required to do so in this case. Now UCRGrad and I think other people have given reasons as to why the smog stuff should remain. whether or not I agree with them doesn't matter, because he took the time to respond to all of your complaints, yet you really didn't respond to his. He even went so far as to ask you to concisely explain what you had written, and you didn't - honestly, I read the pages upon pages that you wrote, and it's difficult to follow. I would like you to summarize it. I think Tifego requested that people write more concisely too. finally, I think UCRGrad brought up a concern with some of the data you thought you had, that you didn't really do a statistical test and you claimed you did, can you explain that? Thanks. i would accept medication ONLY WHEN both parties are fully responding to each other. i think that in some cases, good arguments have been made and instead of admitting this, the other party stubbornly remains silent. I'm referring to Pimpclinton, in this case. 909er 21:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

909er, you are incorrect that the burden of proof goes to those who want to remove the information. See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. And no, that doesn't mean you can delete everything else that isn't sourced, because that would be violating WP:POINT, unlike removals that are backed by several editors who clearly believe it would make the article more encyclopedic. –Tifego _{08:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)}

Alright, on second thought, I'll start this off. In referring to the latter part of the statement "and that the air in this region can damage the lungs of children," this statement is wrong to include. Here's why: (Note: included after my reasoning are counterpoints that were stated in previous discussions).

• My Reasoning 1: The majority of UC Riverside students are not “children” nor do they have children.

• Possible counterpoint 1: “The campus and community are integrated” (definition: campus students use the community to conduct business in and live near/amongst native residents), this is true, but the focus is on and should remain on the UC Riverside students, whom comprise the largest group at UCR. However, on the "Riverside, CA" encyclopedic entry, this statement may be more applicable to include, where the focus is in describing how smog affects all the residents of Riverside, including the students and the children.
• Possible counterpoint 2: “Students have families with younger bros/sisters that come visit them for a substantial amount of time.” I contend that this event is an extremely insignificant one as it is not occurring most of the time. In addition, students also have grandparents that come visit them, some students have pets, some grow plants in their backyard, etc. - it is insignificant to mention (using equally verifiable and applicable sources) that the elderly, cats/dogs/fish, and plants are also prone to adverse health effects as well.
• Possible counterpoint 3: “These findings were in the study and apply to all of Riverside, including UCR” - this is a variation of Possible counterpoint 1. Again, yes this study encompasses UCR, but since UCR students are not children, this latter portion does not apply to UCR's demographics (non-children).

I have laid out my first argument in very basic form. If there is any objection to clarity/definitions or if you’d like definitions to any terms or phrases I’ve used, please ask me. I will assume you understand/are clear on my points if you reply with additional counterpoints. And I wont be offended if you simply say "could you expand on sentence X? I didn't quite get what you were talking about." Also, please keep replies below, numbered, and indented (e.g. "Counterpoint 4" or "Reply to counterpoint 2" - don't write them in-between my points). You may now add counterpoints or address any “possible counterpoints” at this time. Pimpclinton 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC).

Pimpclinton, thank you for taking the time to clarify your argument concisely. I do appreciate it. What I understand is that you are arguing: Since the majority of UC Riverside students are not children, nor do they have children - it then follows that since the NEJM article is related to children, it is not relevant to an article on UCR and should be excluded. Your responses to 3 possible counterpoints all stem from this stipulation.

My response is as follows: The study group in the NEJM study included children up to age 18. I would expect the overwhelming majority of UCR freshmen to be either 17 or 18 years old. Therefore, the NEJM article study group was actually directly applicable to a large proportion of UCR freshmen, which corresponds to thousands of students. Based on this information, it is not possible for you to claim that the NEJM findings are not applicable to the UCR population. Furthermore, your argument does not support your request to remove mention of smog altogether (I believe that it definitely deserves mention) as well as adverse health effects (which has been published in a prominent medical journal, which covers Riverside smog and Riverside children). thanks. UCRGrad 00:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for producing your “understanding,” that helps a lot. Actually, I have not (yet) stated/implied that the NEJM article should be removed (the former part of the sentence that is). Furthermore, I have in no way stated/implied that the smog paragraph should be removed. I have only stated explicitly that the last portion of the sentence referring to the children (i.e. "and that the air in this region can damage the lungs of children") should be removed. Is this clear to you now? I need an affirmative before we can continue; otherwise this section will turn into a complicated mess of misunderstanding as it has in the past.

Also, please affirm that this is your “official” Counterpoint 4:

• Counterpoint 4: “Since the overwhelming majority of UCR freshman are either 17 or 18 years old, the findings in this article, pertaining to developing children from 10 – 18 years old, are directly applicable to a large portion of UCR freshman – which corresponds to thousands of students.”

Is this precisely what you are counterpointing to my statement - that "the majority of UC Riverside students are not “children” nor do they have children"? I will respond to this only if you agree - if this is not what you're stating, please clarify. Also, as stated earlier, I will assume that you agree that Counterpoints 1-3 are incorrect to conclude - specifically to this latter portion about the children, not necessarily to the whole NEJM study. Pimpclinton 01:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC).

Did I stutter? UCRGrad 02:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC) I understand your desire to be precise, but it is absolutely unnecessary to pause at every interval to repeat what I have just written. I expect you to read critically as an educated individual and to respond to what you read. If you want to emphasize certain stipulations, then I suggest that you separate them or ennumerate them. It's a waste of everyone's time to respond with the equivalent of "so what you're saying is..." ...though I appreciate the fact that you didn't respond with 20 paragraphs this time. UCRGrad 02:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Way to be condescending and yet completely unwilling to answer a clear and precisely-phrased question with a simple "yes" or "no". Could it possibly be that somebody's depending on the foreseeable "complicated mess of misunderstanding" to keep from being pinned into a logical dead-end, or to simply exhaust the debating opponent? I dunno, I'm just speculating. Want to prove that speculation wrong? --DtEW 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dtew, is this precisely what you are counterpointing to my statement - that I was unwilling/unable/too-condescending to answer yes/no to a useless response? -- I will only respond if you agree - if this is not what you're stating, please clarify. UCRGrad 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

STOP! This is getting hot and heavy too quickly. Let me explain, in calm and collective terms. UCRGrad, you do not understand my desire to be precise because you have a tendency to misunderstand what I'm saying. Here's why:

• (1) I did not infer that the NEJM article should be excluded as you have incorrectly concluded (UCRGrad: "...it then follows that since the NEJM article is related to children, it is not relevant to an article on UCR and should be excluded.").
• (2) I did not infer that this whole paragraph on smog should be excluded as you have incorrectly concluded .

If me asking for your affirmation seems "too basic" to you, it's actually not because you've already misunderstood me --> right now I am only focusing on the latter statement about children. That was what I had originally stated, please review this. Plus, I did separate and enumerate my points (and even your counterpoint #4). It's all right there. Can you affirm that I did not originally make those inferences and that Counterpoint 4 (bulleted) is your “official” counterpoint? A yes or no will suffice. Pimpclinton 03:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC).

If you'd like to focus on the "damages lungs in children" statement, that's fine. If you stipulate that you WILL NOT argue that the ENTIRE NEJM sentence and/or SMOG reference be deleted, then I will apologize for broadening your focus. If, however, you intend on arguing that the NEJM sentence and/or SMOG reference be deleted, then I stand behind what I have written - because I know where you are going. With regard to this "counterpoint business," why on earth are you under the impression that I've committed to only ONE counterargument? You seem to imply that I cannot change my response once you've "locked it in," which is absurd. It's very simple: you have argued that the statement about "damages lungs in children" should be removed. I have responded to it. Quit pussyfooting around and respond to my counterargument. UCRGrad 03:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I will stipulate that at the moment, I am only referencing the last statement. In other words, if we come to an agreement that the "child" statement is incorrect to include, it (and only it) will be removed and further arguments will be conducted on the need for the rest of the NEJM article. Baby steps.  ;-) And I must add, I am finally glad you understand this! Yay!

• I am going to assume, by your response given, that the bulleted Counterpoint 4 is your "official" counterpoint. Counterpoint 4: “Since the overwhelming majority of UCR freshman are either 17 or 18 years old, the findings in this article, pertaining to developing children from 10 – 18 years old, are directly applicable to a large portion of UCR freshman – which corresponds to thousands of students.”

• Also, if I have given you any impression that you are limited to counterarguments, I apologize. Of course not, the 3 given counterpoints are valid and the 1 you gave is valid - you can give as many as you want (but I ask that you put them in bulleted form, for my own clarity). I have only begged you to confirm the validity of Counterpoint 4 as it was rewritten by myself and put in bulleted form for clarity and conciseness. If this bulleted summary was given when it was first posted (as I asked for in my original post), I wouldn't have to ask for affirmation now would I?

Unfortunately, I have much business to attend to tonight and tomorrow afternoon so I will address Counterpoint 4 when I have more time (I can assure you, I have plenty of valid and compelling responses). In the mean time, can I have a copy of your demographic data for UCR? Pimpclinton 04:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC).

BTW, "Pussyfooting"? I've spent this whole time getting you to realize that we're only talking about "damages lungs in children" - the least you can do is be patient.

So I was correct when I suggested your broader argument was to have smog and NEJM data removed. I stand behind what I wrote, and I'm clearly one step ahead of you. UCRGrad 05:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC) You can assume the above is my above counterpoint because it's a direct quotation from me. If you just assumed that the counterpoint that I wrote was INDEED my intended counterpoint, we could have moved on a LONG time ago. If you want to see how annoying it is to ask for redundant clarifications, just ask, and I will respond in like fashion." UCRGrad 05:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC) A) You are not in a position to demand that I conform to any such format, and I don't appreciate your tone. B) You asked me to respond to EACH counterpoint in bulleted fashion. However, these are counterpoints that YOU made up. THey weren't mine. I only had a SINGLE response, which undermined the very premise that all of your other counterpoints relied upon. Therefore, it was unnecessary to respond to each individually. I even alluded this to you. I realize that you need to have things explained over and over, you need points clarified and reclarified, and you like to write in pages and pages - I will try to dumb things down a little in the future. UCRGrad 05:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, can I have a copy of your demographic data that shows that there are no 17 and 18 year olds at UCR? UCRGrad 05:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that what I've implied? Pimpclinton 05:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC).

Regarding statement 1 - you have only deduced that I was to have the NEJM data removed (never said anything about the smog). However, if I prove that the child's data is impertinent and you end up giving excellent reasons why the rest is to stay - I'd adhere to that. We cannot be arguing against two different aspects of one statement at the same time, it's too chaotic and goes nowhere. Pimpclinton 05:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC).

1) I have INDUCED, not DEDUCED. 2) Please look up the difference between "infer" and "imply," as you haev used them incorrectly above. 3) Would you please state your counterargument for the love of god. UCRGrad 05:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've been reading up on this debate about the air quality in riverside and wanted to look into the article in question. However, the link provided only gives me an abstract and I was wondering if anyone had the actual article. I would suggest that there are a significant number of better scientific articles on this subject just from reading the abstract. So if someone could please help me get the data so I can get up to speed. Since this is the field in which I work, I feel I could be a good help to the discussion at hand. jahamal 3:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

If your school has (or you have) a subscription, the full article can be reached at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/11/1057 . SoCalAlum 07:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

UnblockingTau's Response to Pimpclinton

Dear Pimpclinton, It's nice to be back from vacation. I am much less stressed than I was previously, so I think that I'm in a much more tranquil mood. I would like to thank you for clarifying your arguments; I very much appreciate that.

I support the inclusion of the statement, that is, “Riverside air can damage children’s lungs,” in the UC Riverside article.

Pimpclinton Point 1: The majority of UC Riverside students are not “children” nor do they have children.”

I will now state my counterpoint, which is completely independent of any other counter-points raised thus far.

Counterpoint 5: A reasonable number of UCR students grew up in the geographical regions that were studied in NEJM paper and conseqeuently the results of the study are applicable to this sub-population of students. Therefore, because of this fact, the statement in question should be included in the UC Riverside Misplaced Pages article. UnblockingTau 01:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

All the new changes

I've been busy so I haven't had time to make all the changes, but I'd like to thank everyone that has. The article has made a ton of progress. With the changes that Hearty and Dandanxu recently made, it seems like it is but a hair away from a Neutral Point of View. Surely the article must include negative information about the school, but previously the article purposely excluded positive info. Keep up the good work, and that tag should be down soon. 138.23.21.216 23:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

-The changes have not been discussed in TALK. I would like to please ask you to justify the proposed major changes before you make them. I would consider it a personal favor if you would do that. Pimpclinton is taking the time to articulate reasons why he/she feels somethings should be changed and I think that is a very respectable way to go about this. Thank you. Insert-Belltower 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to add that 138.23.21.216 (the user above) traces back to a computer located on the UC Riverside campus. I'm not going to say anything further about this. UCRGrad 00:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you even mention it? –Tifego _{02:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

When making extremely major changes, it's courteous to leave a note on talk. But what UCRGrad Insert-Belltower seems to be suggesting is that any somewhat major edit is "invalid" if it's not pre-approved on talk by the article's frequent editors. No user is obligated to "justify" all their edits. See WP:BOLD. szyslak (t, c, e) 03:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that changes need to be pre-approved, only that it would be courteous to leave notes in TALK. Insert-Belltower 14:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested that major edits are invalid if they are not pre-approved. Please quote where I have written this. Otherwise, please apologize for misquoting me. UCRGrad 03:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I was actually referring to what Insert-Belltower said above, and I mistakenly substituted "UCRGrad" for "Insert-Belltower". szyslak (t, c, e) 04:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, just because someone edited the article on the UCR campus does not make them ineligible from contributing. Their contributions must be scrutinized like everyone else's.Calwatch 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to UCRGrad's comment, I have left notes in the TALK section whenever I made changes. Dandan 17:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't my comment. UCRGrad 17:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"not consistent with current trends" - UCRGrad's latest argument

UCRGrad said:

"It's not an opinion, it's a FACT. Current trend is DECLINE. Projection is INCREASE. Current trend is therefore not consistent with projection. qed."

to justify this being in the article:

"UCR has been projected to grow to 25,000 by 2015, which is not consistent with current trends"

Sorry, but that argument isn't logical:

1. You can't call it a "trend". It's not NPOV language to call a recent change a "trend", because that implies it will continue to happen, and we're not supposed to be predicting the future.

   If we're not supposed to be predicting the future, then let's go ahead and take out the "projected to grow to 25,000 by 2015." I'll let you take it out. Thanks. UCRGrad 04:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

   Fallacious argument. We are not supposed to predict the future (ie labeling a recent change a "trend") because that constitutes original research. We are allowed to cite the predictions of a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source that terms the recent change a "trend", only then would you have a point.--DtEW 04:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

   (Actually, even if you did find a reliable source that said that, you would still have to properly attribute it to that source instead of calling the recent change a trend.) –Tifego _{04:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

2. You can't say it's "not consistent". Consistency is a matter of opinion; perhaps their future predictions already took short-term decline into account. And even if it's clearly not consistent, it's not the job of an encyclopedia to say that; the facts speak for themselves already.

Consistency is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a term that describes logical conflict. For instance, if Bob says "My GPA went up" to one person, then says "MY GPA went down" to another, he is being INCONSISTENT. UCRGrad 04:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not use this version instead:

"Despite this recent decline, UCR has been projected to grow to 25,000 by 2015"

It gets across exactly the same information, but is also completely NPOV because it doesn't make any statement about how reasonable the projection is.

–Tifego _{03:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

On the other hand, we should just remove the sentence altogether. 1) The projection is bunk, because it was clearly made prior to actual enrollment figures, and not updated to reflect the decline. 2) The projection is AUTOMATICALLY OBSELETE in 2015, why add information that will be obselete. UCRGrad 04:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Tifego. If enrollment at UCR has been declining the past couple years, that doesn't prove it'll decline even further nine or ten years from now. I would imagine the projections for future growth at UCR are based on factors such as California's increasing population, increased demand for a UC education, plans to expand UCR, and so on. In California, the top eight percent or so of high school graduates is guaranteed admission to a UC; they have to go somewhere. Besides, the recent decline in enrollment may be due to any number of factors. Keeping in mind that UCR admits a significant population of low-income students, in these uncertain economic times they could be choosing Cal State schools, community colleges or a career path instead of a relatively expensive UC. It doesn't prove UCR is a bad school. szyslak (t, c, e) 04:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict-- You (UCRGrad) have already removed the projections of 2007 , for unexplained reasons, so I'm not sure why you're acting as if 2015 was the only projection. I wouldn't object to removing the sentence altogether, but I can't think of any good reason to remove it either; it seems a relevant enough fact. –Tifego _{04:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

1) I actually don't care if the projection stays or goes. UCR can project whatever the heck it "wants to" ...doesn't mean it's going to happen. Whether or not I like it, the data comes from a verifiable source, even though I think it's untrue. To respond to szyslak, you're forgetting that UC Merced will be taking the bulk of "extra" high school grads - the availablity of those several thousand seats will likely trump all other factors in continuing to decrease UCR enrollment. At the very best, UCR MAY slowly expand. maybe. 2) I think it's a waste of space to list the projected enrollment for each upcoming year. I chose the most optimistic one to remain. OTherwise, too much devoted to a projection that won't likely happen anyway. 3) Who's trying to "prove UCR is a bad school?" - that's your inference, and yours alone, szyslak. 4) "Despite this recent decline, UCR has been projected to grow to 25,000 by 2015" implies that the projection takes into consideration the recent decline. In reality, the projection is INCONSISTENT with the recent decline. If this inconsistency is somehow mentioned, I'd be fine with it. Inconsistency just means there is a conflict of data. UCRGrad 04:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The projection is completely consistent with the enrollment growth since UCR's inception. A better argument is that the projected growth is completely consistent with UCR's doubled enrollment over the last 11 years, and completely consistent with the unbated growth of 9 years from 1994 to 2003. THAT is a trend. Two years and a loss of less than 5% of enrollment absolutely pales in comparison to the overall trend no matter how you cut it, and it is only you that is insisting that this recent anomalous decline (relative to overall trend) is the thing that the projection must be compared to. There is no inconsistency other than the one you manufactured. --DtEW 06:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The doubling in enrollment over the last 11 years took place in the absence of UC Merced. Now that UC Merced is actively consuming a portion of UC applicants, we can't expect this trend to continue. Furthermore, a loss of 5% is a substantial drop if you're actually expecting the university to be growing rapidly. Finally, I have explained why usage of "inconsistent" is 100% appropriate here. I'll repeat it again because you apparently just dismissed with with your rhetoric: "there is no inconsistency other than one you manufactured." Try being rational this time when you consider the lack of "opinion" in the usage of the word. I'll repeat what i wrote here for you: "Consistency is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a term that describes logical conflict. For instance, if Bob says "My GPA went up" to one person, then says "MY GPA went down" to another, he is being INCONSISTENT." If you're not familiar with the denotative and connotative meanings of a word, it's probably a good idea not to pretend like you do. UCRGrad 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no direct inconsistency here. If the school said "enrollment went up that year" and then said "enrollment went down that year", that would be inconsistent (or if they changed their prediction of the same year, then those two predictions would be inconsistent with each other), but a future projection cannot be logically inconsistent with a past or present situation. It might be a ridiculous projection, but it's not an encyclopedia's job to say such a thing, unless it is quoting somebody else who said such a thing. Quite simply, the sentence was not encyclopedic, and could not possibly be encyclopedic no matter what the facts are about this university. –Tifego _{01:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)}

Likewise, the word "trend" does NOT imply any prediction at all. It simply means that there is a pattern in the data that heads in a particular direction. A decreasing trend means values are decreasing. It does not necessarily mean the values will go up or down in the future. Usage of the word "trend" is also not a matter of opinion - decreasing numbers are decreasing numbers, and they constitute a trend if they repeatedly decrease. UCRGrad 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The bigger problem with using "trend" is that it's a subjective term , and there is no citation of someone categorizing the decline as a trend, so it's improper to refer to it as such when there are other, more neutral ways of getting the point across (such as stating that there was a decline). Even if enrollment has been decreasing non-stop for that last 10 years (which it hasn't), it would still not be a good idea for the article to call that a trend when it could simply say it's been decreasing for the last 10 years. –Tifego _{01:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)}

Perhaps I'm not as sharp as you, but I'm still not seeing the subjectivity of the word "trend". Merriam-Webster's most apt definition (3rd def. of sense 2 (noun)) states:

3 : the general movement in the course of time of a statistically detectable change; also : a statistical curve reflecting such a change.

If you qualify your description of an apparent trend with the interval of time that it's based on, what could possibly be subjective about that? "Trend" is simply a more concise way of conveying a change, either ascending or descending. SoCalAlum 02:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"If you qualify your description of an apparent trend with the interval of time that it's based on." Okay, in that context it could be objective, but that was not done. It just called a projection "not consistent with current trends", which in no way qualifies the interval of time it's based on. –Tifego _{02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)}

I'm sorry, but I'm still not seeing where the bias is. There was a decreasing trend, because the numbers were decreasing. There is no arguing against that. The term "trend" does not inherently imply a duration - trends can be short, medium, or long-term. You're being ridiculous. UCRGrad 03:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And you're being condescending as well as making a straw-man argument (that wasn't the point of my argument you just refuted there).

Contrasting "trends" of unstated duration with a long-term prediction, and saying that those currently short-term trends actually contradict that long-term prediction (without citing anyone who has said this) is simply not the best or clearest way to put that sentence.

–Tifego _{08:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)}

Objection to listing mitigating data about other UC campuses specifically

To this sentence: this same book listed UCR among the bottom twenty universities in its top 361 universities for "Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses", "Professors Get Low Marks ", and "Professors Make Themselves Scarce". Someone added: "In the latter two categories, University of California, Los Angeles ranks lower."

To this sentence: Additionally, only 5% of UCR alumni donate back to their alma mater, which corresponds to the lowest alumni giving rate of any university in the nation. Someone added: "The rates at UCLA and UC Davis are at 16% and 10% respectively

This can get ridiculous. For every fact about UCR, we can list the percentage/value for each and every other UC. You can see how this can be cumbersome. However, if nobody seems to object to adding "other campus" info here and there, my line: " Compared to other UC schools, UCR has the lowest peer assessment score, the lowest selectivity rank, and the lowest ranking overall - that is, UCR ranks lower than UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, and UC Santa Cruz" should NOT be a problem out of consistency. UCRGrad 03:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the alumni giving claim deserves some investigation. Are we sure it's the lowest in the nation, or just the lowest among Princeton/US News' top so-and-so-many colleges? There's a huge, HUGE difference. I find it hard to believe UCR has THE lowest giving rate in these United States, lower than any jerkwater Internet diploma mill. szyslak (t, c, e) 04:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Szyslak's recent edits

909er, who some people think is the same person as UCRGrad, reverted my edits, calling them "obnoxious" and demanding an explanation on talk. Here goes:

1. The medical library thing has been discussed ad nauseam. It doesn't matter that UCR doesn't have a "dedicated medical library". That would be a problem if it had a medical school.
2. I also made the tone of the section more neutral, softening the "UCR sucks" argumentation throughout. My edits were aimed at improving this article.
3. I was being bold. Is that such a crime? There was no need to "justify" my gentle NPOV work. But I did anyway.

szyslak (t, c, e) 05:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Yo. The sockpuppet argument is getting old. Do you have anything new? 2) I don't recall the medical library thing being discussed ad nauseum. Can you copy it? 3) There IS a need to justify your obnoxious changes. If you don't feel a need to justify your changes, I don't feel a need to justify my REVERT!!!!! ...and here it is. 909er 05:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the fact that UCR is the lowest of the UC system is definitely notable. The spin of "lower" is just that, spin, when UCR is the lowest. That in and of itself is an accomplishment: the lowest UC still probably kicks the vast majority of other four year state colleges and universities in the country. The lack of Nobel laureates in an otherwise star-studded UC system is similarly noteworthy. However, naming all of the UC campuses when one can click on the University of California article is a bit absurd. Calwatch 05:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree that UCR's status in relation to other UCs is notable. However, my word choice ("lower" instead of "lowest") was not "spin" or POV pushing. It was simply a stylistic choice. What I don't like is how the reverted version repeats the word "lowest" several times. I think one "lowest" (or "lower") is enough. And I definitely agree it's ridiculous to name all the other UCs one by one. It sounds like it's saying "Look at all these schools that are better than UCR". szyslak (t, c, e) 05:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Your so-called stylistic choice actually makes the sentence LESS accurate. Accuracy takes precedence over "style." 71.198.58.193 13:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Medical library

UCRGrad and several of his, um, supporters, argue that the article should mention that UCR lacks a dedicated medical library. It is beyond unnecessary to make such a statement. Yes, it's a true fact that there's no medical library at UCR. That's probably because it's, um, financially imprudent to pour tens/hundreds of millions of dollars into a brand-new library building to serve just 48 students. It's a false issue, one of many on this page. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

1) There are 48 MEDICAL STUDENTS at UCR. 2) TWO YEARS of actual MEDICAL SCHOOL CLASSES are taught at UCR. 3) It's irrelevant how much it costs to have a medical libary, and nobody said you have to have a "brand-new library building." The presence of medical students and medical school classes, but the absence of a medical library is relevant. UCRGrad 13:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Alumni

The 5% is what needs to be put in context. A random reader without previous knowledge of giving rates would have not be able to appropriately digest the number without seeing similar one's for other schools. 5% seems strangely low until you realize that UCLA--perhaps the greatest public university in the state--is only 10 points higher. In other words, the statistics themselves must be posted to provide context. There is no explaination for "2-3X higher" other than to slant the data. Unless you're attempting to pull a fast one, you would have no objection to the verbatim posting of statistical data. The users can do the math themselves if they'd like. 138.23.21.216 06:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to whoever responds to this: don't latch onto the last sentence without properly addressing the previous ones. –Tifego _{08:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)}

A random reader already has the most pertinent information needed to "appropriately digest" UCR's alumni giving rate of 5%. It's the LOWEST value of ANY comprehensive university in the nation. Even though you think "oh wow, UCLA and Davis are 15% and 10%," those values are TWO TO THREE times as HIGH!!!" I'm worried that the 138.23.21.216 user, who originates from a UCR campus computer, may not have taken a math course that explains percentages yet, which explains his failure to understand that a factor of TWO and THREE is BIG. UCRGrad 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hate crimes, redux

The hate crime information about the Inland Empire is irrelevant. Firstly, it assumes that hate crimes occurred on an equally distributed basis (the article notes ONLY that 148 hate crimes occurred in the Inland Empire, which doesn't say when they occurred). Please also note the fact that the Riverside County Sheriff's Department can't verify all these hate crimes. In fact, actual statistics from a primary source, trumping all other sources according to WP:RS, show 114 hate crime offenses in 2004 in all of Riverside County, with only 24 occurring within the City of Riverside. While 24 incidences is higher than average, it is not that high. LA County had 624 incidences compared to Riverside County's 114, yet LA County has five times the population of Riverside County. You don't see articles saying that LA County is a center of hate (primarily because most of the hating is black on Latino or Latino on black which gets less coverage).

By the way, that report lists UC Riverside as having NO hate crimes. Since the footnotes say that only agencies reporting a hate crime are included, and previous versions of the data have included UC Riverside with hate crimes, this means that there were no hate crimes in 2004, the year of last publication (and two hate offenses in 2003). This corresponds with UCR's Clery Act disclosure here, which shows that UCR had no hate offenses in 2004. The UCPD reference may include "offenses" that have a broader scope than an actual incident as defined by the federal Clery Act and the state Attorney General. Thus, I am going to delete the additional information, because of its irrelevance, and its contradiction to a verified source, the California Attorney General. Calwatch 08:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For clarification, the five instances in the UCPD report were incidences of bias that were not Clery-reportable offenses. This could be as simple as name calling or vandalism, not hate motivated offenses against another person. Calwatch 08:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Calwatch, thank you for taking the time to type a careful argument. From what I understand, you assert that hate crime in the IE is irrelevant because: 1) It assumes hate crimes were equally distributed geographically in the Inland Empire 2) A primary source states that there were no hate crimes in 2004 occuring on the UCR campus. 3) Your primary source states 114 hate crimes vs. the 148 in MY reference, and your reference is superior. 4) HOWEVER, the UCR Police Dept reports that there were 5 hate crimes on campus that year 5) You surmise (but you don't really know) that the methodology may have been different (i.e. different degrees of crime reported vs. not-reported).

I have several problems with your argument, Calwatch. 1) Nowhere is there an implicit or explicit assumption that hate crimes are equally distributed geographically. I will stipulate this. (Nor is it necessar to assume this for any of my arguments.) 2) Your primary source is INFERIOR is an inferior source to data from the actual UCR PD. This is because your Dept of Justice (AG office) report is a compilation of consolidated data from various agencies. Data from a specific agency is obviously more reliable. 3) Your primary source was for Riverside COUNTY. My source was for the INLAND EMPIRE. Since the Inland Empire is bigger (and includes Riverside county), obviously my number will be bigger. Our two sources are NOT in conflict. 4) The fact that there 5 hate crimes on campus already makes this notable. 5) If you don't really know what the 5 hate crimes were, then it's just pure speculation that these UCR police department reports were merely "name-calling" or "vandalism."

That being said, EVEN IF I stipulated that there are NO hate crimes at UCR (which I don't), I would still argue that students are clearly exposed to the surrounding area when they drive off the immediate campus for: apartment housing, shopping for groceries, attending community events, going to the mall, etc. Thus, the fact that the surrounding area has such a problem with racial crime is notable. I will go ahead and add the changes back in. Thanks. UCRGrad 16:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, please see this link from a UCR server. I don't know where Berkeley got their information from. But the federally required Clery Act disclosure clearly shows that UCR had NO legally definable hate crimes, not just "incidents", during the period. Therefore, I am going to revert. Calwatch 16:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics