Talk:University of California, Berkeley/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Excessive Boosterism in Introduction and Overall

This article reads like an advertisement for the school. I'm not sure I really agree with this "prestige" narrative and I get the feeling it was crafted as an insecure response to the Stanford page (not trying to throw punches here, just saying). Perhaps you can balance it out with more information about the school's less attractive undergraduate program (relative to other private schools). I just think more balance is needed. Pdyusmep (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The account Pdyusmep seems very likely the resurgence of the notorious (blocked) account User:RabidMelon, which is affiliated with Columbia University and controlled over 10 accounts and IP addresses (Wikipedia:Sock puppetry). These accounts show Protectionism of Columbia University Wiki-page and uses double standards while viewing other universities. Their standard tricks include Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, threatening, bluffing, disrupting, and consistent reverting of other editors' revisions. University of Chicago was among the universities that had been targeted by these accounts. Now it seems they are targeting at UC Berkeley.

I have reverted some editing of Pdyusmep in UC Berkeley page, but I'd keep the updated ranking results. 205.208.120.129 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow you have some serious issues my friend. This totally deteriorates the quality of discussion on this page. You should sign into your account first so your own edits can be accounted for. The problem with this page containing boosterism still stands. Dealing with a sour UC Berkeley graduate is difficult as we can all see.Pdyusmep (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is back up, with User talk:89.248.140.9 edit warring to remove the "prestige" mention and the rankings entirely. UCaetano (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Setting aside the persistent sockpuppetry and edit warring, the material is WP:OR so it should be removed until editors can find sources that explicitly support it. Collecting together a bunch of different rankings to make an argument is textbook synthesis; moreover, if it's so important that it needs to be included in this article and indeed in the lede then surely an editor can find reliable sources that directly state it. ElKevbo (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this talk page's two headings about boosterism; this article sounds like WP:Promotion. The article would be a lot better if it could be written from a more balanced and Neutral Point of View. Just my personal opinion, can change the article to be more impartial in tone if you want. It would read better. Best. Mikecurry1 (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice that the above discussion is about the previous usage of words like "prestigious" in the lead, as in the pages of Harvard and MIT. It is a fact that since 2011 Times Higher Education has conducted annual university reputation survey in which UC Berkeley has consistently ranked as one of the "Six Superbrands" [[1]] [[2]]. In addition, one has to distinguish between synthesis and an objective report of ranking results from various sources. Nevertheless, the saying regarding "prestige" has been removed and replaced. On the other hand, I don't really agree/understand your claim regarding WP:Promotion and neutral tone. You should be much more concrete. 205.208.121.169 (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Following to an old discussion may mean it gets lost. What about starting a new discussion at the bottom of the page, assuming you think you can get consensus for changing the language yet again? I have reverted the most recent change to the article, which wasn't agreed to; not surprising since no one's had time to weigh in yet. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You are right. I will respond to you soon. Just saw this.Mikecurry1 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Section between two editors

Please discuss any conflicts here for other moderators to weigh in on. "The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful. The third opinion process is informal and other users on the page have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Just adding that some IP editors edit warring on this article are edit warring on the Columbia article as well. Hoping for a consensus.--Boldstandard (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the main complaints by one IP editor appears to be of "sock puppetry." My thought is that regular IP editors with a consistent history of editing Berkeley's page get screen names so we can identify them. Moreover, so that no one editor feels discriminated against, maybe editors could agree to focus on content points, and not personally harass any one editor (including name calling such as "the vandal") for holding differing opinions. Berkeley is known for peaceful demonstrations of free speech, so as long as opinions are expressed in a respectful and civil dialogue, hopefully that is okay. Seems like a win-win for both IP editors, or this is starting to get there. I am not familiar with the history of the conflict, but this is a start to gain consensus for some mutual win-win solutions. Please IP editors list any complaints and suggested solutions if you have any. Mikecurry1 (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we're not going to require editors register; Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even unregistered editors. ElKevbo (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. IPs do not have to register and requiring them to do so is a no-no.--regentspark (comment) 14:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, it was just a suggestion to deal with the sock puppeting issue for the two ip editors to get screen names, not a requirement. So how would you suggest to deal with one editors sock puppetry complaint. I was trying to give both IP editors one concession to work towards a truce, one to be accepting of diverse opinions without personal harassment, and the other of sock puppetry. These are both wikipedia rules, but not being followed currently. It seems that those are two of the problems described by the ip editors, where one ip editor was very mad about sock puppetry and wrote a whole section up on it. Mikecurry1 (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Towards a Neutral Tone

As requested by Dhtwiki I am starting a new thread. The UC Berkeley wiki currently reads from an outside perspective very arrogantly. UC Berkeley is a great school, and there is no doubt about that. At the same time when you compare an encyclopedic wiki like the University of Oxford, it is much more humble in tone. In my opinion, this wiki reads like I am going to tell you everything that makes Berkeley the school so great, rather than a neutral toned encyclopedic article telling about the school and what it does. Yes, every university wiki does have some academic boosterism. At the same time, the article would greatly benefit from a more neutral point of view.

Concretely, to do this one would make sure facts are balanced, so you are not cherry picking only certain positive rankings, but presenting all the major ones together. It would present all sides of the coin. I recommend referring to the University of Oxford's tone as it is much better suited for an encyclopedic article. Also refer to information from Wikipedia on how to write in a Neutral point of view. This is only my opinion, but it also seems commonly experienced currently considering there are two current headings on this talk page about "academic boosterism", and on the actual wiki page writing about "ego." Therefore, considering several people are commenting on the articles tone, it may benefit from a more neutral point of view. Mikecurry1 (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure what "balanced facts" are. Perhaps you can be more specific. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Mikecurry1, I'm going to guess you got reverted in part because of the tone of the edit summaries of those first two edits of yours. As for QS World University Rankings, personally I have no problem with including that--well, I didn't, until I read that QS is not without controversy. By the same token, UCaetano, you've been here long enough to know that you can't just revert without explanation (you used Twinkle, which in turn uses rollback, and this is a violation of the rules for that tool). Dhtwiki, you too: the edit wasn't contested (by Caetano), it was simply reverted. And that edits need agreement is fake news, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with Mikecurry1's words that the UC Berkeley article carries an arrogant tone, and I do not think the University of Oxford is a great example.

1) University of Oxford uses statement "one of the most prestigious universities in the world", with only two supporting sources, both from Times Higher Education (THE) reputation survey. This is a much more "arrogant" or "showing-off" statement than an objective report of the ranking results from various ranking agencies. In fact, according to the same sources of THE reputation survey, the same statement of "prestige" can be used in the UC Berkeley's page. But it has been removed and replaced to make the tone more neutral.

2) I'm not totally against adding the Q.S ranking to the lead. And, the statement that "ARWU ranks UC Berkeley 1st among public university" is obviously from previous year. And I have no problem that this has to be removed specifically for 2017-18. But, this small example can not be used to draw the conclusion that this article overall is written in an unbalanced tone.

3) Notice that the so-called "academic boosterism" discussion in this Talk Page is mainly due to the same person who persistently does disruptive editing on UC Berkeley's page. 128.135.98.174 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, in reply to Drmies. Yes, for "balanced facts" more specifically I meant if you presenting the major international rankings, present all of the main 4. The main 4, THE, QS, ARWU, and possibly US News Global Rankings (though it is new). That way a reader can form a balanced opinion from all the facts rather than cherry picking just the top ones to make a university appear incredible. You are right, my tone was off too for the reasons why. That was why I was reverted, but the edits were sound. Cambridge is the #1 public university globally in the ARWU, so there is nothing wrong with that (it has been giving instruction since the 1200's.). Therefore, I removed the fact that in the ARWU Berkeley was the #1 public university in the world. US News was still true so I left that there, may be a pro US school bias, but that is fine.

• The Neutral Point of View page I cited explains balance as the following, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

• In response to 128.135.98.174, That was just my opinion about presenting it in a neutral tone, its fine if several others disagree or agree too.

• I will stay out of the debate regarding using the word "prestigious", not trying to rehash that debate I was not here for. Berkeley being one of the world's six "super brands" does seems notable to include. Rather, my point was just generally presenting more university facts, rather than facts showing that Berkeley is great, in the way the University of Oxford page seems to do, which seemed more humble to me from an outside source. Specifically, some things I appreciate from the Oxford's wiki tone, are that while Oxford is a public university which ranks highly, it does not list in the intro all the times it is #1 as a public school. Oxford also has many achievements over its lengthy history, but does not write about them all in the intro. Rather, it selects a few notable facts about the university to present, in what I think is a more modest way. Such as how Berkeley is historically known as a place for free speech, which was a useful line in the intro. I know nothing about that particular user from that thread, for example, C.Fred just wrote directly above this in a thread not titled academic boosterism, "There's no consensus of rankings to say they're the top public university; further, it would change year to year." I will leave it to you guys to edit the page as you like, just was presenting my opinion and starting a discussion on article tone as requested. Mikecurry1 (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with having a more neutral article, but that's not what you did. Absolute rankings are irrelevant and change every year, I agree with that. More neutral wording would be "frequently ranked among the top universities in the world, particularly amongst public universities; it was ranked 5th in the world (and 1st amongst public) by the xxx tank, xxth in the world by yyy rank, and xxth in the world by zzz rank". UCaetano (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A more neutral toned article was all I was suggesting. The particular wording does not matter to me, and can be up for debate. I just provided the initial suggestion and topic as recommended by Dhtwiki. I'll let you guys determine what is most appropriate for the wording. Best. Mikecurry1 (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Remember I said, "assuming you think you can get consensus for changing the language yet again?" I didn't want to either encourage or discourage you. However, you'll have to do the heavy lifting in this, which would require you to take into account the concerns raised in the above discussions, especially the longer, second discussion where you have to read between the vitriol to see that claiming UC Berkeley as #1 public university seemed to be at issue. Then, if that's your objection, you should craft some substitute language that we, or most of us, can agree to. Otherwise, nothing will get done. I think it's too early, and I don't think the language at this article is excessively boosterish. If Harvard, which has been doing it well longer than anyone in this country, in a town founded by people against ostentation and from which the development of the intellectual life of America seems to flow like a river, can say that they're really, really prestigious, then I don't have a problem with Berkeley saying more-or-less the same, as long as it's somewhat grounded in reality. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Mikecurry1, that a much more neutral statement is needed for an encyclopedia page. Additionally, the sections below describe Berkeley's position and its national and international rankings. It just seems extremely excessive to put this at all in the intro section and honestly, it just appears that there are some insecurities about needing to validate that UCB is a good school. The debate as to whether or not the "superbrands" by one publication qualify as its prestige being equivalent to Harvard and Cambridge is impossible in my opinion. Also, a lot of these rankings focus its ranking score based on faculty and Ph.D publications (and impact factors of these citations) which gives an misleading perception that the undergraduate academics is also on par with these elite universities such as MIT or Oxford, when in fact, on nearly every single ranking data that is out there that focuses on undergraduate rankings, UC Berkeley is often several notches lower (i.e. U.S. News, Forbes, etc.). People argue that AWRU and TIMES rank the university as a whole - there is no such thing!!!!! Please do your research and look at the ranking criteria on how these publications score the rankings before continuing the debate. Undergraduates don't. contribute. to. research. impact. factors!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.154.46.56 (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't understand your comments toward me. In reverting, I though I was in the right phase, as was UCaetano, of the BRD cycle (where reversion is contesting and edit summaries are apt to be missing the longer just the BR phases alternate, without any D), and by "agreement" I meant consensus building. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, if you want to revert, revert, but you have to do so with a valid reason. You said "Contended edits need to be discussed; where was this change agreed to?" which mixes policy with guideline and in the end is simply not correct. Sure, if by "phase" you're talking about BRD, that's something, but you didn't invoke it, plus it's a guideline, not policy. That a change has to be agreed to is simply not true; agreement or disagreement should appear in the process, as your explanation here suggests--but if you're going to revert, a full explanation is better than a lacking one. Worse, it seems that you had no contentual reason to oppose the edit, that you opposed out of a misguided principle. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(Dhtwiki I just indented your comment in so it is easier to read, still understandable here.) Mikecurry1 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Good points Dhtwiki (talk). I agree with this language written by UCaetano "particularly amongst public universities" That seems more neutral as it shows consideration to other international top universities including Cambridge and Oxford. With regard to the next sentence, "it was ranked 5th in the world (and 1st amongst public) in the ARWU, I had removed (1st amongst public). This is because University of Cambridge is #1st for public schools internationally in the ARWU. Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, UCL, ETH Zurich, etc. are all public too. If you want to say "2nd for public schools internationally" that is accurate for the ARWU. Particularly, if you want to include that you are a top public university in parenthesis, it should be balanced by including the other top rankings, THE, QS, and if you want US News. So for ARWU (2nd public international), THE (7th public international), QS (15th public internationally), and US NEWS (1st as a public school internationally). That is more accurate and balanced. These are global rankings, not US rankings only. To me, it can unintentionally sound egotistical to claim Berkeley is ranked higher as a public school than Oxford, considering Oxford is the second university opened in the world, and its history and influence on world affairs. Therefore, I had removed the (parenthesis) previously. Rather, [User:UCaetano|UCaetano]] (talk) wording "particularly amongst public universities," sounded much more neutral and humble for an encyclopedia article. Mikecurry1 (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there are more things in regards to a neutral tone than rankings that can be done to improve this article as referenced by the recent comment above, but that can be a goal for others who read this talk page and the headings about boosterism and aiming towards a Neutral point of view, as I was just starting the discussion. Mikecurry1 (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Let me summarize the points. It is quite straightforward. And notice that the vandal with IP 134.154.46.56 continues his/her disruptive language.

1) Listing the ranking results from four major agencies (ARWU, THE, QS, US News) is objective editing. (So I have no problem of adding QS ranking to the lead) There is no original research or synthesis. That's it, period. However, if one tries to interpret the ranking methodology uses his/her own understanding, such as what the vandal has been persistently doing, is original research and is prohibited in Wikipedia. In fact, undergraduates do contribute to the research factors in the rankings, unlike what the vandal claims; undergraduates may publish papers under the name of UC Berkeley, involve in research projects of professors, and they may become Nobel laureates or the equivalent which are counted as "Alumni" factor in ARWU ranking, just to name a few.

2) Using the word "prestigious" is not as objective as simply listing the ranking results. As of now, Harvard, MIT, Oxford and Cambridge all adopt the usage of "prestigious", unfortunately. The only direct source supporting the statement regarding "prestige" is the university reputation survey from Times Higher Education. Notice that even though UC Berkeley is listed as one of the "Six Superbrands", it does not use the "prestige" statement. So, arguing that the UC Berkeley page is arrogant/academic boosterism with the examples of Oxford or whatever is not proper.

3) "UC Berkeley is often ranked as the top public university in the United States" is a fact, supported by the sources already provided in the lead. It does not claim "always", nor does it claim "in the world". And, the statement that "ARWU ranks UC Berkeley 1st public in the world" is obviously from the previous years. I have no problem of removing it for 2017-18. Most importantly, to be fair, the public university system in U.K. and many other European countries is different from that in the United States. One major aspect is that these European public universities are funded directly by the Central government, but the public universities in the United States are funded by the State governments.

4) Finally, besides the "ranking issue" discussed above, no solid and concrete evidence has been listed to support the saying of "non-neutral tone" and "academic boosterism" in UC Berkeley's page. In my view, there is no need to further such discussion.128.135.98.162 (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

On (2), Prestige: widespread respect and admiration felt for someone or something on the basis of a perception of their achievements or quality. Even the THE uses it "The responses were then used to determine which universities were considered the most prestigious." So nothing wrong with using prestigious. "The most prestigious universities" is the same as "top universities by quality reputation". UCaetano (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Good summary !

I will add a drop more about how to create a neutral tone article, by reviewing wiki's suggestions for university pages through their problem/solution interface towards a neutral tone too.

Problem : Avoid vague terms of praise

Solution: possible examples , 'world-renowned', ' top hospital in California', 'more than any other university in the world.'

Problem : It's not a score board or horse race

Solution: "…has 65 Laureates, 102 Award Winners, 165 acres of land, 72 academic programs, 15% admissions rate, 13 national championships, …..."

"…has the second-largest student body, third-largest campus, fifteenth-largest faculty, seventh-largest research expenditures, sixth-most applicants, second-most award recipients …"

"Compared to X, Y has a larger student body, campus, faculty, research budget and lower admissions rate and failure rate."

"It is tempting to replace claims of prestige or academic excellence with a cascade of related or unrelated facts intended to generate the same impression. While this is a large improvement over the vague claim, remember that a university article's lead paragraph should be a summary of the most important facts about that institution. Move detailed listings of facts deeper into the body of the article."

Therefore it is beneficial to provide a thumbnail sketch of the dominant and distinguishing characteristics about Berkeley in the intro, but not a list of accomplishments and achievements. Summarize the rest of the article without giving undue weight to any particular section (such as rankings) and mention distinguishing academic, historical, or demographic characteristics. The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article."

These could help the article become more in line with an approved article.

Sources used : Wikipedia:College and university article advice, Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism

Mikecurry1 (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, personally I do not care if the word 'prestigious' is used or not; Berkeley should be able to use prestigious when other pages do. In only my opinion Berkeley is a prestigious school, and it is fine if that word is added. This is not a discussion of the word prestigious that can be a separate section, it is about establishing an overall neutral tone for the article. Please keep all comments related to content with nothing personal. Best Mikecurry1 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There IS an issue with using the word "prestigious" (on this university page as well as others). It doesn't matter whether one person or many people believe it to be true or false. Wiki articles should provide objective, data driven information that is backed by strong and relevant sources. It does not make sense to simply discuss things on talk and then assume a simple majority overrules any discussion points. Then we're just getting political as to who ca generate the most votes with any kind of opinion backed by really poor citations (given, these days, you can use the internet to find a seemingly reliable citation for almost anything).73.158.170.153 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems like Corky also had an issue with the use of the word "prestigious" in the semi-protected edit above. Someone had asked my personal opinion on the word prestigious, and I was okay with it; for me that word is not a big deal either way. This word seems highly contentious on this page. Maybe, lets forget about the word prestigious for now, and we can focus on other points related to a neutral tone here that we can form consensus agreements on. Mikecurry1 (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Recently reverted changes

I recently reverted User:Mikecurry1's changes to the article, because they were not presented here and thus had no consensus. My impression is that the discussions here have been even-handed as whether change is needed. This is the last paragraph of the article lead as it stands now:

For 2017–18, the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) ranked Berkeley 5th in the world and 1st among public universities. Berkeley is also ranked 18th internationally among research universities in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, 6th in the 2017 Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings. It is additionally ranked 4th internationally (1st among public universities) by U.S. News & World Report.

Mikecurry1's changes left it as this:

For 2017–18, the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) ranked Berkeley 5th in the world. Berkeley is ranked 18th internationally among research universities in theTimes Higher Education World University Rankings, 6th in their World Reputation Rankings. Berkeley ranks 27th internationally in the QS World University Rankings. It is additionally ranked 4th internationally by U.S. News & World Report.

The main changes were: (a) the removal of the phrase "1st among public universities", twice, which originally referred to just US universities, but somehow seems to have lost that qualifier, and seems a reasonable deletion; and (b) the insertion of "Berkeley ranks 27th internationally in the QS World University Rankings", which I'm less sure about. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Was just trying to create changes by consensus that were discussed in the summary. Sorry, if you felt that was rushing ahead with the edits. In terms of (a) it seems like you think thought that was reasonable. In terms of (b) the QS addition, I had inserted it as there was commentary by users Drmies and the ipeditor 128.135.98.162 in his summary about it being an objective ranking, and those two editors having no problem and being okay with it. If you wish to discuss the QS further that is okay too.

I was trying to make the writing sound better, but other changes to what was written can be changed also. It was mainly just consolidating those two edits before from the summary. The reason for the qs inclusion was as the ip editor wrote, its objectivity. The major three global rankings are THE, QS, and ARWU. QS is one of the influential global rankings providing global rankings for over 15 years. It has been included in wikipedia global ranking boxes for this reason as well as its influence. It presents Berkeley's rankings in a more neutral and accurate light. By being objective I actually think it makes Berkeley look better too, as it appears more neutral. I kept US News rankings too, which are new to the global university rankings in the last year, and less influential for global rankings. Many international universities do not use the US News global rankings currently, and thus it is still not on the international global ranking wiki academic templates. QS is in every template. At the same time, US News is highly influential among US rankings. I kept US News global rankings as it shows Berkeley in a positive light. Yes, all global university rankings methodology have some controversy and we all will wish they were different. At the same time QS inclusion was more for objectivity and neutrality. Therefore, I had thought the ip editor 128.135.98.162 made a good summary point, "Listing the ranking results from four major agencies (ARWU, THE, QS, US News) is objective editing." Mikecurry1 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll look more closely tomorrow. I saw more ambivalence toward change than you did. I now think that trading "1st among public universities" for "ranks 27th internationally" might be too much of a switch, especially when displayed so prominently, unless others weigh in for its inclusion. I'm all for just dropping the former term as incorrect as it now stands. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed that there are two "ranking" mentions in the lead: the last paragraph, given above; but also the last sentence of the first paragraph, which reads:

It is often ranked as a top-ten university in the world and the top public university in the United States.

with what must be an overkill of referencing, especially for the lead.

I'd work to combine these mentions and, if necessary, move some material, and many of the references, to the "Rankings and reputation" section of the article.

I'm undecided as to whether it's appropriate to remove "1st among public universities", as I suggested above. The references seem to make a case for that internationally as well. It seems to come down to how you regard Oxford and Cambridge. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

As you noted, it already says above "the top public university in the United States" above. I think it is easier to form an argument for Berkeley as the top public university "in the USA", but it cannot be said "in the world". (Note this is already quite a controversial statement, C.Fred wrote above, "There's no consensus of rankings to say they're the top public university; further, it would change year to year.") If you wanted to be neutral and accurate for an encyclopedia you could list the public international rankings for all the major rankings in parenthesis, such as 5th in ARWU (2nd public internationally), 18th in the THE (6th public internationally), 27th in the QS (14th public internationally), 4th in US News (1st public internationally). Many international universities are funded by the government and public in the same way Berkeley is such as the most known in the US Cambridge and Oxford, but also Imperial, UCL, ETH Zurich, Australian National University, École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, National University Singapore, etc. I thought this looked worse to display all the public international university rankings accurately. Most importantly, as you noted, it is redundant to rewrite #1 again and overkill as the first sentence already says the same thing: "the top public university in the United States". Therefore, its definitely appropriate as it is factually accurate, and will look better to remove that "1st among public universities" statement from the rankings. Mikecurry1 (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is the current proposed version, please make any changes to the statements you think are appropriate: *Note that the article already wrote "the top public university in the United States" above*. Mikecurry1 (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

For 2017–18, the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) ranked Berkeley 5th in the world. Berkeley is ranked 18th internationally among research universities in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, 6th amongst their World Reputation Rankings. Berkeley ranks 27th internationally in the QS World University Rankings. It is additionally ranked 4th internationally by U.S. News & World Report.

I've been meaning to work on this, but haven't. I would bring the single sentence in the first paragraph of the lead, to prepend to what you have, to make one paragraph deal with all the claims to excellence. A part of the work to be done, as I see it, is to audit all those references, to remove duplications, out-of-date, etc. Dhtwiki ( talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mikecurry1: I suggest that the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead:

It is often ranked as a top-ten university in the world and the top public university in the United States.

be retained, but without the references. There would be no more mention of rankings in the lead; the last paragraph of the lead would be removed. That first-paragraph sentence, with references, would be duplicated at the beginning of the "Rankings and reputation" section, with your reworded paragraph to follow, as part of a new first paragraph, with the Times Higher Education mention moved to the second paragraph, the beginning of that section to look like this:

It is often ranked as a top-ten university in the world and the top public university in the United States. For 2017–18, the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) ranked Berkeley 5th in the world. Berkeley ranks 27th internationally in the QS World University Rankings. It is additionally ranked 4th internationally by U.S. News & World Report.

Berkeley is ranked 18th internationally among research universities in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, and as the 6th most reputed university in the world by the Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings. The reputation rankings, based on a survey of more than 10,000 academics worldwide, are just six years old and this is the sixth time Berkeley has placed in the "elite six" along with Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cambridge and Oxford.

I still need to audit the references for relevance, but there don't seem to be duplicates (just ones that need reference names, so they aren't duplicated as they are in the reflist-talk list). I'm most concerned about the prose for now. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: What you wrote does seem like a big improvement over what is currently there to me! Perhaps the last extra sentence explanation of what the THE World reputation may not be needed, as it adds some commentary, and the 6th in the world ranking on the reputation scale is sufficient. Nice synthesis, and it makes sense that that sentence about number one public school in the US was moved to the ranking section of the intro. This edit should be incorporated! Cheers Mikecurry1 (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Remember that I mean to merely duplicate the sentence in the lead first paragraph. It will still say "number one public school in the US" in the lead, which, I think, is a supportable statement. I'll think on removing the last sentence of the second paragraph (if we do so, the second paragraph would be short enough to incorporate in the first). Dhtwiki (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a big improvement to merge those two paragraphs. Then the first paragraph is written about the history of the school. Mikecurry1 (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just made the changes, with the two sectional paragraphs merged, after taking out final sentence of the second one as possibly original research (I didn't find it supported in the source I checked). Dhtwiki (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dhtwiki that was a good edit. I was unaware that you meant take out all the rankings sections section. I thought you were just going to put that sentence before the rankings section and then merge the top two paragraphs together. Currently, that sentence stands quite strong and sounds a bit like boosterism alone without additional information about rankings. That is because it says Berkeley is often ranked as a top 10 university in the world. This is true, but there are many times it is not true as well. Without additional information, it sounds far less objective. Perhaps, you can merge the top two paragraphs together and just take out that sentence. It reads much better like this. I have created one version like this you can preview if you want. If you want to have this sentence and rankings, then maybe we can insert the paragraphs you wrote about rankings above in your block quote towards the end of the article. That way it is only said once about rankings instead of twice, and all the rankings information is together in one place. That may be the preferred method by the majority, to use the paragraph you wrote at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

References

More work needed?

I see that there's been some edit-warring, partly due to a misunderstanding of the edit I recently made, when I thought I was clear on what I was about to do. The thing to do would have been to revert the edit and continue the discussion here, so the article itself would be unsullied. Participants other than just Mikecurry1 and myserlf are welcome to this discussion but haven't been participating. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That can work. I guess it was just that the reason for the revert provided was harassment and personal attacks rather than any legitimate reason for a revert. That is what caused the edit war. "Edits constituting harassment will be reverted... Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by harassment and/or personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences such as blocks, arbitration, or being subjected to a ban... Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia." This appears to be ongoing on this wiki-page (as per the already open dispute resolution section between two users), and needs to stop.

Happy to discuss content reasons to make a change. Seems like I previously agreed with you Dhtwiki, and we were getting somewhere very productive. Was trying to edit your version and give a few examples for you to edit off of further to improve the article.

I agree with you, all editors are welcome here. Please chime in with your ideas.

I have copied the current intro here, please make edits to it. Was working on merging it together, per your idea. Mikecurry1 (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley, Berkeley, Cal, or California) is a public research university in Berkeley, California. Founded in 1868, Berkeley is the flagship institution of the ten research universities affiliated with the University of California system. Upon its founding, The Dwinelle Bill (California Assembly Bill No. 583) stated that the "University shall have for its design, to provide instruction and thorough and complete education in all departments of science, literature and art, industrial and professional pursuits, and general education, and also special courses of instruction in preparation for the professions". Berkeley was established through a merger of the College of California and the Agricultural, Mining and Mechanical Arts College. Berkeley has since grown to instructing over 40,000 students in approximately 350 undergraduate and graduate degree programs amongst a wide range of disciplines.

Berkeley is one of the 14 founding members of the Association of American Universities, with $789 million in R&D expenditures in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015. Today, Berkeley maintains close relationships with three United States Department of Energy National Laboratories—Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory—and is home to many institutes, including the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute and the Space Sciences Laboratory. Through its partner institution University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Berkeley also offers a joint medical program at the UCSF Medical Center.

As of March 2018, Berkeley alumni, faculty members and researchers include 104 Nobel laureates, 25 Turing Awards winners, and 13 Fields Medalists. They have also won 9 Wolf Prizes, 45 MacArthur Fellowships, 20 Academy Awards, 14 Pulitzer Prizes and 207 Olympic medals (117 gold, 51 silver and 39 bronze). In 1930, Ernest Lawrence invented the cyclotron at Berkeley, based on which UC Berkeley researchers along with Berkeley Lab have discovered or co-discovered 16 chemical elements of the periodic table – more than any other university in the world. During the 1940s, Berkeley physicist J. R. Oppenheimer, the "Father of the Atomic Bomb", led the Manhattan project to create the first atomic bomb. In the 1960s, Berkeley was particularly noted for the Free Speech Movement as well as the Anti-Vietnam War Movement led by its students. In the 21st century, Berkeley has become one of the leading universities in producing entrepreneurs and its alumni have founded a large number of companies worldwide.

Berkeley is often ranked as a top-ten university in the world and the top public university in the United States. For 2017–18, the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) ranked Berkeley 5th in the world. Berkeley ranks 27th internationally in the QS World University Rankings. It is additionally ranked 4th internationally by U.S. News & World Report. Berkeley is ranked 18th internationally in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, and as the 6th most reputed university in the world by the Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings.

As no further changes have been discussed here, editors have since been editing based off the edit I made on Berkeley's main page. My edit, stemming from dhtwiki's idea and edits to merge the document, was clearly a huge improvement in readability. I will assume the edit I made was a good one overall, and the revert was based on clear personal harassment rather than substance. Mikecurry1 (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought your edits were a fair approximation of what we talked about, although I wonder at your aversion to boosterism and moving that one sentence from the first to the last paragraph of the lead (in other words, I wouldn't have made those edits myself but don't want to quarrel over slight differences, unless others want to object). With the inclusion of references in the lead, I wonder whether that makes for duplicates in the Reference section, since I didn't see any naming and anchoring of references (I haven't checked the list myself). Dhtwiki (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Dhtwiki. PLEASE DO make edits off of what I have done. You created a major edit suggestion to merge some ideas. I agree with it 100%. My edit was not perfect, so please do improve upon my edit. I have no quarrel or problem with you or others adjusting my edits and improving upon them. In terms of the sentence about Berkeley being the top 10 school in the world, I had moved it lower as it was about the rankings section. That way the intro could be about the history. In my opinion the article read slightly disjointed when the rankings were discussed in both the first and last paragraph. I thought it was cleaner organization for the rankings information to be together. This allowed the first paragraph to be about the history of the school, and the merging of the first two paragraphs together. The other advantage is that this statement becomes more objective lower. It is a controversial statement (as noted previously by CFred) I thought by putting it next to the rankings, it adds objectivity. It further substantiates the claims by explaining the rankings next to this statement and adds that Berkeley is the top public school in the US too. That was my reasoning, in case you were wondering. I also agree with you and believe references can be removed too since the next few sentences explain the statement too, I do not mind at all removing references; too many references are excessive. These were my reasons for moving that sentence lower. At the same time, you can move this sentence to another place if you think that it is better elsewhere. So I have addressed removing references, which is a good idea, and that sentence, which can be moved if you want. Theoretically, in terms of why I do not like academic boosterism, I had thought that this article's tone did have academic boosterism previously. That is why I created the section on towards a neutral tone. This has been dramatically improved since that section was started by focusing on the facts about Berkeley, and less on opinions. A lot of improvement has been made in this regard, and I am happy with these improvements to the article's tone since. This article has improved substantially since. Yes, all schools have some academic boosterism, and I do not have any problems with that. At the same time it felt like by focusing on the facts, it makes Berkeley sound like the great school it is. In my opinion, a tone with pride is dominated by a neutral tone, as generally people appreciate humility even more than pride. Berkeley has a phenomenal reputation as a brand (top 6 in the world), so people already know that Berkeley is great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Addressing recent edit-warring

@Mikecurry1 and Rzvas: (and the involed IPs) – We should address the recent edit warring, which has attempted to remove the last lead paragraph as promotional and redundant. Its citations do duplicate those further down in the article. If only for that, I propose that the old, one sentence mention of Berkeley's ranking in the lead's first paragraph be restored and the last paragraph be removed. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I was not here for this new edit war while it was occurring. It appears this has since been resolved. The intro reads much better now after your and others edits to it! I think we composed a solid update to the intro @Dhtwiki:, excellent work! Mikecurry1 (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Reflist

References

"Beckman Professor" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Beckman Professor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Polyamorph (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Top-ranked" in the first sentence

@Dhtwiki: The last major talk page edit to this page was on 1 August 2018, at which point, the first sentence of the article looked like this. As far as I can tell, the decision to include the phrase "top-ranked" in the first sentence of the article was an entirely unilateral decision by Thomas Paine1776 with this change on 26 September 2018.

While some discussion of the university's rankings from reputable sources is probably suitable for the lead, it is inappropriate to use the phrase "top-ranked" alone in the first sentence of the article. In short, it's a peacock term—a term used to promote the subject without clearly imparting verifiable information. What rankings is this referring to? On what basis is the university being ranked? Who is ranking these universities? Is the university "top-ranked" all-around or just for the research its faculty performs? You can see how it's starting to get hard to differentiate this from just saying "this is a good university" in Wikipedia's voice, which would be a violation of our neutral point of view policy.

As the phrase was apparently inserted without consensus, I think it should be removed, especially since the somewhat promotional tone of the lead has been a point of contention in the past. Mz7 (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not such essential information about this subject that readers must be told about it in the very first sentence of the entire article. 22:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7:I agree with MZ7 that while some information about rankings is appropriate from reputable sources, using peacocking statements is not needed. I thought this sentence sounds like peacocking also for Berkeley.

"Berkeley is often ranked as a top-ten university in the world and the top public university in the United States."

Think the sentence after it is sufficient to describe reputable sources in the lead and so this summary sentence is no longer needed. Had a majority of the 3 established key rankings ARWU, THE, and QS been in the top 10 I would think there would be more justification for the sentence here, but currently it sounds like peacocking to me too. I think it is better not using this summary sentence, with just the reputable ranking sources described.172.91.97.202 (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"Top-ranked" seems rather like "award-winning", a peacock term that should usually be avoided. It seems better to have detail on its rankings in the body, where they can be contextualized and fully elaborated on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree although I might concede the point if significant reliable sources could be provided that specifically support this kind of assertion (see the similar sentence and supporting sources in the lede of Harvard University for a decent example). ElKevbo (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately, how should the rankings be discussed in the lede? I don't think listing out Berkeley's rankings in a variety of different publications is suitable for the lede as was the case previously. Similarly, I agree that using terms like "top-ranked" is too vague. I think that simply saying that Berkeley has been ranked in the top 10 by a variety of publications is factual, neutral, and adequately summarizes the rankings as they pertain to the school. Moreover, other university pages utilize this same format (see Columbia University for example) BUjjsp (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just checked the cited sources, most of which are dated 2019 or 2020, with the Times ranking dated 2016–17, and all of which rank UC Berkeley in the top 10. Other than having fallen off the Times list, apparently, it seems this school still has a healthy worldwide reputation. I don't know that we need just this language in the lead, at its current place in the lead (and with so many references attached); but I don't see the problem with retaining the current language. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't include this information in the lede unless reliable, independent sources also explicitly discuss this information as an essential characteristic of this subject. It's synthesis for Wikipedia editors to cherry pick a selection of rankings and draw a synthetic conclusion particularly in the lede.

And yes, this is a widespread problem; I suspect that some of it is good-faith editing by editors who aren't familiar with our policies and guidelines but a good portion of it also likely comes from editors with a vested interest in promoting the subject(s) e.g., alumni, employees. ElKevbo (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

What does the first sentence mean? US News & World Reports and Times of London, etc., are usually regarded as reliable. I don't think synthesis is involved, since the rankings explicitly state which schools are 1, 2, 3, etc. Synthesis would be if criteria for being a top-flight school were given—SAT scores, acceptance rates, number of Nobel Prize winners on staff, etc.—and an editor decided to label UC Berkeley as top-ranked because it met those criteria. Can you show that the ranking services have been cherry-picked? Are there others of note that don't rank the school highly? How have we missed the on-balance or "numerous" part of this? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how the sentence in its current form is an example of synthesis. The statement simply summarizes the fact that a multitude of rankings place Berkeley within the top 10 universities globally. This doesn't constitute synthesis as I understand it since there isn't a new/original conclusion being drawn. BUjjsp (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Is Berkeley a top 10 university?

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the intro section reads, "Berkeley has been ranked by numerous major education publications as among the top ten universities in the world.[8][9][10][11][12]". This description poses numerous problems.

First of all, the claim that 'major education publications' included Berkeley in their top 10 list is not simply true. The QS World University Ranking, Times Higher Education World University Ranking, along with Academic Ranking of World Universities, are viewed as the three most-widely read university rankings in the world. Check this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings#Most_prestigious_global_rankings.

Berkeley was ranked 28th in 2020 QS Ranking and 13th in 2020 Times Ranking; Berkeley is not in their top 10 spot. (Check out both https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2020 and https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2020/world-ranking)

Therefore, it is not sufficient to argue that 'numerous major education publications' picked Berkeley in their top 10 spot. There are at least 19 world university rankings and it is important to refer to the most credible sources.

Secondly, two sources out of five sources are invalid references. Reference #11 is for 2016-2017 Times ranking and it's outdated. This means that the editor deliberately manipulated the data to include Berkeley in the top 10 university. Reference #12 is a 'reputation ranking' and do not line up with other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.88.165.241 (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

We can adjust some of the language to better reflect the fact that the most recent rankings by QS and the Times no longer have Berkeley in the top ten, but that is a recent development and I doubt their inclusion the result of deliberate manipulation or cherry picking. There are many (i.e. numerous) other rankings that still do include Berkeley in their top ten (see, for example, Rankings of universities in the United States). You're still removing the content from the article, which is not the practice; but I've attempted explain that in edit summaries. You don't want to accept that, so I've made a request to protect the page against IP editing. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

So two most cited rankings are 'deliberate manipulation' or 'cherry picking' according to Dhtwiki. Any evidence? If your claim is true, why almost every college and university article on Wiki cite QS and Times while disregarding the CWTS Leiden Ranking? When you talk about a university's ranking, you need to cite the most authoritative sources. And as a rule of thumb, at least 3 reliable sources are required to crosscheck facts. The claim that Berkeley is a top ten university is not sufficiently backed up by any major university ranking tables except for ARWU ranking. Therefore, it is actually you who is imposing your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritto77777 (talk • contribs)

I think that you misunderstood me. The inclusion of the QS and Times rankings, which once but no longer list Berkeley in the top ten, with language that still says the school is in the top ten while quoting QS and Times for support, is not, to my mind, a deliberate attempt to misrepresent. Since there seems to be a hierarchy of rankings that regards QS and Times as most reliable, the solution is to change the summary language to better represent Berkeley's somewhat diminished status, rather than drop QS and the Times references. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

There are no QS and the Times references for the summary. It's not accurate to say that Berkeley has been in the top ten according to 'major education publications.' If you think you need to change the tone of the language, why don't you act on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.243.194.140 (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

US News & World Report and ARWU are among the most prominent ranking sources and both rank Berkeley in the top 10. Times Higher Education, which you reference, also places Berkeley in the top 10 in its World Reputation Rankings. Moreover, CWUR is referenced by many US universities when their annual rankings are updated, which supports the publication's significance. Notice that the rankings statement, in its current form, does NOT say that ALL major publications rank Berkeley in the top 10, but that many do, which is clearly evident based on the sources. Also, stop using new accounts/IP addresses to avoid blocks and impose your edit. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. BUjjsp (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm waiting for consensus to develop here before I go changing the article. That's why I'm not acting on my suggestion. Also, don't evade blocks, which is "socking"; and that won't end well, as there are few worse offenses here. You do seem to want to contribute in a serious way, and your arguments do have merit. It's just that your manner is rather off-putting, and how you go about making your points is outside the documented norms of how things are done here. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite the fact that Berkeley ranks 28th in QS world university ranking, Berkeley boys want to brag about its ranking! Even Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton don't emphasize their rankings on wiki. Okay, you won, egomaniacs. Berkeley is a top 10 university. Wow!!! Does this sooth your ego? XD p.s. This is my last edit, so be satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.162.188.102 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as a Harvard man myself, I'll just pass on my observation that most Berkeley grads know how to spell soothe, anyway. 00:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Who or what are these "Stanford" and "Princeton" of which you speak?

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Cnr campus.png (discussion)
• Haas School of Business .jpg (discussion)
• HaasPavillion UCBerkeley.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

UCB

Editors who want to add "UCB" to the lede sentence of this article are invited to present evidence that the abbreviation is commonly used. As far as I can tell, it has only been added in the past day as a result of vandalism from some Reddit threads. ElKevbo (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring the recent spate of vandalism, I've definitely seen the term in colloquial use before. I think that a comparable case is UCSD; the University of California, San Diego specifically asks that people not refer to it as UCSD, but the university doesn't get to decide whether or not people use that nickname. I'm therefore in agreement with Dhtwiki on this one. Also, just as the lead for UCSD has an explanatory footnote mentioning the fact that the university doesn't approve of the abbreviation, I think that it would be appropriate to include an explanatory footnote here explaining that the abbreviation is not accepted by Berkeley. To me, this seems like a good way to split the difference between people insisting on its unqualified inclusion and people removing it. --Drevolt (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comparable, related and much nearer are University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Mathsci (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

First, the University doesn't decide what Wikipedia says. That said, UCB is quite rare and almost never used (I live in California and am part of the UC system). It is definitely less used that UCSD (which is the norm) and UCSF (which is actively encouraged By the university). While it might merit a spot on the page somewhere, I do not believe it merits a spot in the lede with Cal or Berkeley (which are used many folds more in common speech and in the media). In addition, it does seem that the fact it has only been added recently is indeed due to vandalism that Reddit-borne. While this itself does not disqualify it, it does merit consideration. I agree with ElKevbo on this. Until substantial evidence that it is common use is presented, I do not believe it should be in the lede. I would move UCB to the #Name section, and leave the other 4 (which are more common) in the lede. Eccekevin (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Googling "UCB" limited to the Berkeley.edu site shows that they refer to the university as UCB on the math department main page, the library page, and have a "UCB Center for Race & Gender" along with 2.6 million other results. While I haven't looked at most of these results (just the first three pages or so), the fact that some core webpages and many other Berkeley webpages refer to the university as UCB seem to indicate that the university is commonly referred to as UCB. MrFishJerry (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact isn't if it has been used in the past or if it is still used by some places on campus, but whether it is commonly used in colloquial way or in the media (which generally it is not). And of the nicknames in the lede it is by far the less common. I do agree that it can be mentioned in the #Name section, but I don't think it has a place in the lede. Indeed, it seems to have popped up a few days ago as vandalism after a Reddit thread/dispute between various UC campuses. SO not to incur in WP:RECENTISM, I think it should not be in the lede for now or until better proof is brought up (such as use in print or non-UC website and other media).Eccekevin (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Eccekevin's position. A relatively small number of people use the term UCB because they aren't aware of the UC Berkeley or UC system brand guidelines, let alone UC's complex history or the gigantic mess with UC campus names. (I've always found it funny that UCSD almost ended up as UCLJ.) But most people (especially humanities majors) look up the correct terminology when they come to Berkeley as student, faculty, or support staff and figure out quickly that UCB has been deprecated for many, many years. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Coolcaesar, I think it's important to note that there's no such thing as "correct terminology" here, just the university's preferred terminology. Whether or not the university accepts the abbreviation "UCB" is orthogonal to whether or not it is used commonly enough to justify inclusion in the lead. But just focusing on the question of whether or not the abbreviation is used often enough to justify its inclusion in the lead, after looking into it a bit more, I think I'm in agreement with you, Eccekevin, and ElKevbo that it's a much less common variant than the four already given in the lead and therefore shouldn't be included without better support from reliable sources. --Drevolt (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I remember that, some time ago, "UCB" was disputed, and it remains; so, I doubt it's presence is just a part of some recent vandalism. It's mentioned as a form that you shouldn't use by the second source, an archived UC Berkeley page. So, it's sourced, if only in a negative way. It's probably the briefest of the forms listed, and probably gets used informally (in note taking, for example), although it's not likely to appear in more formal correspondence. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey all, to provide some context, the UCB debate was sparked out of an internet feud that had begun on Reddit in recent weeks; to that end, it was surely edited with an intent to vandalize (because UCB is not used in common discourse or campus guidelines, it seems that some refer to it jokingly or in passing sarcasm as such). I'm also in agreement with the others in not identifying the University as UCB as that is discouraged by the University campus, the University system, and papers of record which report on the two. This has been out of the lede for years and is only just now being debated post-vandalism.JukRik1984 (talk) 7:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Flagship status mentioned in lede

JukRik1984 has begun an edit war to remove mention of this university's "flagship" status in the lede. He or she did use an edit summary or open any discussion so I am left to assume that this second removal of the language was removed for the same reason that he or she removed it the first time: "While Berkeley is constantly considered a flagship in public discourse and historical reference, the University of California system does not use that terminology for any of its campuses. Berkeley is the oldest campus regardless; if there is debate around this, it is best to simply identify it as such. Reverting possible vandalism from the event last week."

This clearly isn't vandalism and it's nonsense for it to be labeled as such. More importantly, the language he or she removed is clear that the label is not official or an opinion shared by everyone: "...and is considered by some to be one of the system's flagship campuses, along with the University of California, Los Angeles."

So why should this information that is supported by really good sources and important for readers to understand be omitted from the lede? If the only reason is "the university doesn't approve" then that's entirely insufficient and sets the ground for the university to censor this article of any other information it doesn't like. ElKevbo (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

To begin, this "edit war" of sorts began with your changing to a longstanding edit on this article. Regardless, I hear you; I do believe its evident we cut out flagship altogether and simply identify it as the oldest. While Berkeley has been referred to as the flagship of the University of California in academic and literary circles since its founding, it hasn't been given that title by the system itself. I do not think it does any campus of the University of California system justice to casually refer to two of them as "flagships" simply because one NYT article describes it as so; it is against Wikipedia expectations, University guidelines, and common reason. It'd be best to simply identify it as the oldest of the University of California campuses instead. Seems like many here are falling for last week's vandalism event @ElKevbo:, which began over a sarcastic feud on Reddit. Seriously, it is best to stop this charade for the good of the article and to just keep its designation as "oldest" without mentioning other universities in the lede. It's ahistorical and a disservice to the topic at hand to identify an entirely different university campus (Los Angeles) in the lede; if anything, it is much more important for that kind of identification to be made in the systemwide UC's wikipedia article, not a specific campus. Great question and debate nonetheless. TL;DR: remove flagship title, don't mention other universities, and simply identify the University as the oldest campus in the system. JukRik1984 (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Mention of the university's flagship status has been in the lede of this article since November 11, 2017; this has nothing to do with Reddit and the recent "UCB" vandalism.

You've failed to answer the question that was asked: Why should this information that is supported by really good sources and important for readers to understand be omitted from the lede? I'm not sure why you stated that "one NYT article describes it as so" when several sources are cited. And I'm still completely unclear on why you explicitly state that this campus has been referred to as the flagship but then immediately counter that including this information - supporting by several good sources - is "against Wikipedia expectations, University guidelines, and common sense." Wikipedia policies require that we represent major viewpoints and that the lede of articles concisely summarize the most essential characteristics of the subject. The university's guidelines are irrelevant. And common sense demands that we tell readers the status of this campus relative to the others in the same system and other public universities throughout the state; there is a reason why the athletic teams of this university, along among all of the other teams of public colleges and universities throughout the state, are known as "Cal[ifornia]".

So this isn't "ahistorical" or a "disservice to the topic at hand." It's well-sourced, important information that has been in this article for over a year-and-a-half. You don't get a personal veto over it simply because you disagree and are willing to edit war over it.

(And if you'd like more sources, please let me know; they're easy to find and add. There are probably some much better ones than some of the ones listed below although the ones listed below are entirely sufficient.) ElKevbo (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, for one, I want to clarify that by no means was my edit an attempt to add a "personal veto," but rather to revert your edit following a slew of vandalized edits (yours, of course, not being one of them). If anything, your edit to the lede is the most change I've seen in this page's lede in years. I have been watching over this page for quite some time now with a particular interest in California history and merely meant to reverse harm done to the Wikipedia community at large. Regarding the flagship status: Berkeley's most commonly used colloquial name is Cal, or California; it is one of the most popular names for the University and, as a consequence, does result in some confusion about its de facto status as flagship. It is clear that this status is disputed, and the reason I mentioned it being ahistorical is mostly the functional understanding of Berkeley and the other 49 state public university systems as having their oldest campuses be their flagship. What I am attempting to clarify in this discussion is the idea that, if we feel like reversing this de facto status because of the rise of other campuses in the system, it would be best and most legitimate to do it in the description and identification of the systemwide University of California article. It truly seems least confusing and most pertinent to Wikipedia readership and information that oldest campus be used rather than a "one of several flagships;" perhaps it'd be best for us to see how other state university system's function on this idea? JukRik1984 (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

By beginning an edit war to remove this information - information I did not add, by the way, although it may appear that way in the recent history given the multiple removals of vandalism - you have indeed tried to exercise a personal veto over information that has been in this article for over a year-and-a-half. The only way you can convince me otherwise is for you to revert your edit and leave the article as it was while we discuss this. ElKevbo (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(The lede, or at least this potion of it, was stable for about a year-and-a-half; it looks like @Galobtter: made the most recent, substantive edit about a week ago to this specific material by adding the sources. ElKevbo (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC))

References