Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:12, 29 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 Archive 4

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)}

Good, so you stipulate that the recent yearly decrease in overall enrollment constitutes a TREND. If the prediction is that enrollment will INCREASE, and it has in fact DECREASED, then the trend is NOT consistent with actual enrollment patterns. I don't see what the problem is. If you don't think this is the "best or clearest way" to put that sentence, that's a matter of opinion. If you don't have a factual objection, then do you have a non-opinionated objection? Thanks. UCRGrad 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I already stated my factual objection to what you just said. See my comment above that starts with "There is no direct inconsistency here". And it's not a major change we're discussing here, yet you persist in arguing against a simple suggestion for improvement. I suggest you take a good look at WP:OWN. –Tifego _{02:58, 29 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)

C'mon man. We have to compare 'comparable' things. We don't want compare apples to oranges, or compare 4 four-year universities to ITT Technical Institute. If we did that it wouldn't be objective and it would introduce a positive bias in the article. Insert-Belltower 17:01, 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)

well technically they're UCLA students, since they get their medical degree from UCLA and not UCR. UCLA has a medical school, and the medical students have online access to them. And honestly, if you've done any kind of biomedical research in the past decade, you should know that nobody actually goes into a library to look up papers because they're all available online. In summary, UCR does not have, repeat, DOES NOT HAVE, a medical school. UCR is not licensed to give a medical degree. So there isn't a medical library, because its really kind of dumb to have one. So why the hell mention it?

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)

I do not appreciate your insults. Where my computer is located as no impact of the merits of my argument. Since you've removed context from the statistic, I'm removing it. You didn't address my points--there is no reason to object to additional statistical data unless you're attempting to mislead. The newspaper doesn't Bush has an approval rating "one half of Clinton's" they say he has one of "40%." Aside from all that, comprehensive is not defined in the article, again leaving the statistic without context. I'm fine with the statistic AS LONG AS COMPARABLE RATES ARE SHOW NEXT TO IT. I don't care that your points got reverted elsewhere, that doesn't mean you get to mess with this. You refused to allow contect, so this is on you. It's out. 138.23.21.216 17:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I address your points already. It is completely arbitrary and cumbersome when you decided to "throw in" a few other statistics from your choice of other UC campuses. Again, why not just list the alumni giving rates for ALL the UC's?? The bottom line is, UCR's is the LOWEST IN THE NATION. That is the most relevant and informative descriptor. LOWEST in the nation allows the reader to compare to EVERY OTHER COLLEGE in the country. Listing UCD and UCLA only allows you to compare to TWO schools, and again, your choice of schools is completely arbitrary. Finally, if we are not going to allow cumbersome listings of statistics for each of the other UC's (like I did for US News overall rank), then OUT OF CONSISTENCY, we cannot allow them here either. I'm sorry, 138.23.21.216, but your points really aren't that great. And to be honest, some of your reasons are some of the worst I've seen yet from your camp. You might want to take a look at PimpClinton and Calwatch and others, who have taken the time to generate carefully thought out responses. UCRGrad 00:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I think a reader of the article can investigate further into the details of the statistic if they wish. I also think there is a reasonable context for this sentence. Insert-Belltower 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Who died and made you approver of all edits? I've provide more than sufficient justification for the edit, you have not. You've yet to address my points--even so, you don't get to decide which edits stand and which don't. See the NPOV Tag? That means changes need to be made--that can't happen if you block ever edit. 138.23.21.216 21:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV means that there exist individuals who do not believe the article is neutral. It does not NECESSARILY MEAN that the article is not neural. NOR does it mean that changes need to be made to make the article neutral. You, like everyone else here, are obliged to properly justify your edits. If you do not, you are more subject to reverts. We're all reasonable people here. If you have a good argument, you won't see me doing any reverts. UCRGrad 00:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

note: NPOV means "Neutral point of view". The {{NPOV}} tag means the "NPOV'ness" of the article is disputed. –Tifego _{03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)}

There is no need to take a hostile tone. I would like to propose a compromise sentence: "UCR alumni donate back to their alma mater at a rate that is lowest of any comprehensive university in the nation."

No percentages are mentioned here, so we will have no problems with the 5% issue. Insert-Belltower 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually think we should mention that 95% of alumni do not donate back....either that or "19 out of 20"...I think that says a lot about alumni pride and success post-graduation. I certainly didn't donate back!!! UCRGrad 00:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How about we leave it out? Either provide context for the stat, or it doesn't deserve to be in the article.

"lowest of an comprehensive university in the nation" constitutes context for the statistics.

This is the sentence I am going with:

"UCR alumni donate back to their alma mater at a rate of 5%, the lowest of its peers. Although, as a whole the entire UC system is well below the nation average, with UCLA and UCD at 15% and 10% respectively."

Your proposal is problematic. "peers" implies other UC's, not all other colleges in the nation. The systemwide UC average is irrelevant. UCRGrad 00:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ALL the UC's have low alumni-giving rates, becuase they are public-unviversities. The highest in the entire UC system is 17%, while the national average is somewhere around 40%. Providing that information would be sufficient in terms of context. Using an undefined and unconfirmed qualifier like "comprehensive" on the other hand is not. 138.23.21.216 22:07, 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)

I'm also going to restate the following: 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, irrespect of hate crime activity directly on campus. You have no grounds to revert. UCRGrad 23:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do, it is NPOV and an article from Alternet, a left-leaning web-only news service, is not a reliable source per WP:RS. If you disagree, I invite you to bring this matter up in arbitration or mediation. Calwatch 01:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

note: NPOV means "Neutral point of view". The {{NPOV}} tag means the "NPOV'ness" of the article is disputed. I believe you meant "POV" or "biased", not "NPOV". –Tifego _{03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)}

Yo, man. "If you disagree, I invite you to bring this matter up in arbitration or mediation" is a useless response that sidesteps your obligation to justify your statements. I mean, dude, you're basically saying that Alternet is NOT a reliable source per WP:RS, yet the WP:RS page doesn't specifically have any restrictions against Alternet, yo. On the other hand, I'm going to cite WP:RS as NOT specifically mentioning anything that would absolutely make Alternet an inappropriate source. You get a revert, UNLESS you can back it up. Eat it. 909er 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The comment "Eat It" violates WP:CIVIL. And your changes will continue to be reverted. Calwatch 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet Accusations

There are too many accusations going around without any evidence. For now on if I am accused of being a sock puppet of Joe Blow or anyone else, I will report it as a personal attack.

Thank you and have a nice day, Insert-Belltower 20:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think you could be UCRGrad. (Unless you're incredibly good at maintaining split personalities, which could be said about anyone). –Tifego _{20:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)}

Thank you. I appreciate that. Insert-Belltower 20:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I apprecate that. UCRGrad 23:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

StudentsReview.com

The StudentsReview.com stat needs to go for multiple reasons.

1. The citeneeded tag has been up for days, if no one is going to bother citing it, it has to go
2. The sample size is 40 students. It's self-reported data as well, and thusly not accurate enough for Wikistandards. You can't cite a messageboard, you can't cite a forum like this. Putting this up is like quoting ApartmentRatings.com.
3. The graph on the FRONT PAGE CONTRADICTS THE STATISTIC. It's clear that over 50% of the students said they could return to the school, whereas the stat listed here, rounds down...significantly.
4. Other statistics listed on the site show a pattern of inaccuracy. They claim that UCR has an average ACT of 14. Clearly, that is not true and is contradicted by UCR admission statistics. I don't even think you can get into a UC school with a score that low. Additionally, the site still has an Application deadline of 2004. It's 2 years outdated.
5. Even if it were acceptable to use information from the site, the authors who have done so, did it selectively. The majority of the school's ratings are in the B range--none of which has been mentioned in the article. If it is so imperative that we mention hate crimes near campus, we must pursue this angle with equal vigor.

Until someone can address these obvious problems, the statistic stays out. It's clearly a violation of Wiki Rules, ethics, and common sense. 138.23.21.216 22:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I will address these so-called "obvious problems" with obvious answers. There really is no violation here.

1) StudentsReview.com is the reference. I am not OBLIGED to use the footnotes format. 2) The sample size is irrelevant. There are plenty of studies that use small sample sizes that are perfectly valid. Sample size alone is NOT a reason to exclude these data, nor does Wiki put minimum requirements o nsample size.

3) These data were derived and compiled by StudentsReview.com and published in tabulated form. We are NOT using data derived from a message board. While the methodology is not rigorous and publishable, at the same time, Misplaced Pages does not mandage rigorous and publishable-quality references.

4) The stat should read "nearly 50%" would not return. That's what I wrote before you people butchered it.

5) It just means that the average ACT of respondents to the survey was 14. Since most UCR applicants don't even take ACT, it's likely that the ACT scores of only a few applicants were used to get that average score of 14.

6) If you wish to put the B-ratings in, that's fine. I don't object to that.

Thus, none of 138.23.21.216's arguments really pan out. I will point out again that 138.23.21.216 is a UCR computer. UCRGrad 23:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Using your first reason as a rationale, you could delete any statement you wanted just by appending a citeneeded tag to it and leaving it there for several days. SoCalAlum 22:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Without ever having to deliver on a "citeneeded" I could just go about posting whatever I wanted, true or otherwise. If you're going to post something, it needs to be cited or it doesn't deserve to be up. Under your logic, I could make something up, put "citeneeded" next to it, and no one would be allowed to delete it. 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that citeneeded doesn't require some sort of response, but you seem to be imposing an arbitrary cutoff date on the statement in question. Why aren't you, for example, taking issue with the citeneeded tags in the History section of the article? SoCalAlum 22:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. Not I'm not imposing any sort of arbitrary cutoff. I'm just taking it one glaring mistake at a time. It would be easier to correct this article, if every single edit was reverted. 138.23.21.216 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 138.23.21.216, NONE of your suggestions have had any merit so far, whereas I and others have been willing to entertain some of the points others in your camp have brought up. Perhaps you should give your reasons a little more thought. UCRGrad 01:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Attention: Please Read Carefully Before Maliciously Deleting Content about Racial Violence

There has been serious discussion about the content related to racial violence in the Inland Empire. I have, in good faith, responded to ALL CONCERNS so far. People have come up with just about ANY reason so far to remove the information. Most recently, I have been disturbed that Calwatch, who has been quite reasonable up to this point, has stopped responding adequately to my counterarguments, and has instead sunk to the level of DELETIONS without fully participating in discussion. This is disappointing to me, Calwatch. I'm going to point out three things to cover the latest hand-waving reasons for reverting:

1) Calwatch's article does NOT REPLACE the Alternet article. There is no conflict between the two articles. I have explained this above in detail.

2) Even IF I stipulated that there are zero hate crimes occurring on the Riverside campus (which I don't), there is STILL ample evidence that hate crimes occur in the Inland Empire, including the surrounding Riverside City. As I've already pointed out ad nauseum, the students are frequently exposed to and interact with this community. I've always pointed out repeatedly that it is common practice for information sources to talk about the surrounding city when they talk about a university.

3) If you're going to state that a source is "biased," you're going to have to explain why. Otherwise, I could just as easily take EACH AND EVERY reference in this article, claim that it is biased (without providing support), and delete the line it refers to. Does that make sense, Calwatch?

4) We have stopped the process of communicating and have resorted to reverts for less-than-reasonable justifications. I can play either way. If you want your side to be heard, then I expect you to cooperate with discussion. I am always willing to discuss issues in a reasonable fashion. Apparently, Calwatch does not wish to, and I think that any third party can see that he has failed to meet his obligation with his most recent actions.

UCRGrad 04:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics