Jump to content

Talk:University of California, Berkeley/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

New Construction Pics

Some seem to think that the pictures of the new developments aren't necessary. I think they are visually appealing and give readers a look at what's ahead at Berkeley. They will be changed once construction is complete. -ckoala84 1/2/2006

the images are copyrighted. we should not be claiming fair use unless the images are essential for the article. they are not. this article already had plenty of images. and many buildings do not have images. for example, why do we bother including copyrighted images of buildings that dont exist when we could include copyleft or public domain images of Barrows Hall, MLK Student Union, Dwinelle Hall, and a whole bunch of other buildings that already exist?--Jiang 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jiang. If this article is to be a featured article, it should not have "fair use" images of questionable justification. If someone in Berkeley could take a GFDL image of the newly constructed music library, that would be better for the "New construction" section than using the copyrighted images.
For that matter, all of the stuff in "Campus architecture and architects" and "New construction" about the campus facilities, historical and planned, should probably be in their own section together (I'd call it "Campus facilities"). The stuff in "New construction" will eventually have to be moved elsewhere, so the inclusion of that section is not a stable design for the article, whereas "Campus facilities" can simply be maintained as needed. Also, most of the "Campus architecture and architects" section should be moved out into a subarticle, IMO. Mike Dillon 03:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
many of us can snap pics and release them/license them for wikipedia use. (This isn't a comment on whether or not we should have construction pics.) -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 00:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Cal" logo is the logo for the Spirit Committee, not the school. It is used for spirit and sporting events, not for academics or any other general function of the University. The references to the university as "Cal" throughout the article should probably be changed too. If the logo belongs anywhere, it is in the "Sports and traditions" section. Moreover the placement at the top of the article being attempted by Ckoala84 (User talk:Ckoala84) looks really bad. I have moved it back to where it was for months before the anon user came along. Please don't return it to the top of the article without some support from other editors. Mike Dillon 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the logo placement, but I don't think that the references to the university as "Cal" are necessarily incorrect (as long as it's mentioned near the beginning that Berkeley is often referred to as "Cal"; I'm not sure if it is). Berkeley people often refer to the university as "Cal", even in non-sports-related contexts. Catamorphism 22:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The Cal Logo is synonymous with UC Berkeley. In fact, you will probably see more students wearing Cal shirts than Berkeley, signs around the campus say "Welcome to Cal" not welcome to UC Berkeley. So while officially it may be a spirit group logo, it has become more Berkeley than Berkeley itself. Yet, from working in Public Affairs, those outside of California find it hard to tie Berkeley with "Cal", often seeing CAL as a name for a California schools or all UCs. With that said, perhaps it looks bad right on top, but I feel it should be more prominant than buried at the very bottom, or the distinction as "Cal" should be made more clear. ckoala84 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I vote +1 on using "Cal" in the article in general; it's how students, staff and faculty talk about our school. I think the logo is more appropriate in the spirit and sporting events section though and don't really think that the logo-version of "Cal" should get increased prominance to distinguish it from the linguistic use of the word "Cal". -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 00:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
This almost defines POV: it's how students, staff and faculty talk about our school. Except for in the sports world, "Cal" is an insider name. I know you were involved in the previous discussion about the "Cal"/"California" issue (see /archive1#On Being called "California"), so you're aware of the argument that calling the University "Cal" in all contexts confuses those who don't know about all the other universities and colleges in California. Mike Dillon 01:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a very good point (about POV), Mike. Perhaps someone can change the "UC Berkeley"s to "Cal"s back in the sports and athletics section and we can go forward understanding that using Cal as Cal students use it is POV. What about knicknames for organizations and individuals? Are knicknames POV because they're shorter, snappier or because the author might know the organization/individual more intimately than the reader? -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I see that someone has changed all the Cal's to "UC Berkeley" or "Berkeley". It wasn't my intention to make this even more contentious. I think that "Cal" is actually preferable in the "Sports and traditions" section since in the sports world the school is almost invariably "Cal" or "California". Mike Dillon 01:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should use Cal in the article. However, I think our use of it needs more explanation. What about, along with the parenthetical reference to "Cal, California, Berkeley, etc.", in the lead paragraph we say something like: Because Berkeley was the only comprehensive University of California campus for nearly half a century, it still retains the tradition of being called "Cal" in context of its athletics. (not an exact quote but you get the idea). Ckoala84 3:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC).
Well we've scared off a few people from this page due dumb squabbles like this. I was interested in trying to get this to featured article status, but I don't have the time for things like this. Maybe someone else does. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


This is not a very subjective matter... see OMMT Trademark Guidelines. Cal, UC Berkeley, University of California, Berkeley, etc. are all acceptable identifiers for the campus and organization of the University of California, Berkeley. Historically speaking, the correct name was "California" as the Berkeley campus was the original and only University of California, and thus the short name "Cal" made perfect sense. I was the publications director for the Cal Band for two years, and believe me, they (the Office of Marketing and Management of Trademarks) control all their trademarks heavily and consider all of them to be quite official, including the script Cal and the Cal name. Even though the band invented the Script Cal and the Cal logo in a field show in the 1950's, they still did not let us falter on the trademark requirements. California is the name of the university, as is Cal, as is UC Berkeley, as is The University of California, Berkeley, and as was simply the "University of California." Cal and California retain the heritage of the university's original name, and they must never be discounted. They are not only acceptable, but also historically accurate, widely-used, and legal trademarks for the University. This should not be an argument.
Use them at best discretion (This is my "vote", though in reality I'm dictating this as a professed expert on the trademark) -- when in an academic context the preferred use is "Berkeley," "UC Berkeley," or "University of California, Berkeley,". When referencing the school in a spirit, athletic, student, or coloquial context the preferred use is any of the above, "Cal", or "California" period. Also, as the trademark guidelines indicate, when referencing any sports team, the Bears, the name "Cal", "California", or "University of California" must be used. The word "Berkeley" is completely absent in that context. Any questions? (Note: I do agree that we need to use best judgment in where to place the logo and specific names, just trying to clear things up) Trisweb 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wurster Image

I oppose the use of the wurster image in the article. Although it has SOME relevance, it crowds the page and is extremely unattractive. If it were to be relevant to the text, it should be placed where the Wheeler image is now, and I feel that would be a mistake. Ckoala84 1:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

Sports and Traditions section

I made a few large scale changes in the beginning of the section (complete rewording, moved a paragraph). Hope it helps with the flow. I'm still unhappy about the large amount of small paragraphs. Perhaps I'll tackle that at a later time. Arcimpulse 02:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Consider the problem tackled. :) Arcimpulse 09:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions that Stanford students come and paint the Big C red. Can someone actually cite this? I have heard that the Cal Band is the one that actually paints it red, and Rally Comm paints it yellow again. kaisenl

Confirmed (don't tell anyone) but you won't be able to find one reliable source for it. ;-) This tradition has also been ended due to legal action as of 2006. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trisweb (talk • contribs) 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Setting

I added a part called "Setting" to describe the physical environment and added a link to the 2020 landscape plan. Hank chapot 04:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

racial percentages makeup

hi, this article should have the racial make up of the undergraduate, graduate, or total student population. where can i find that?--Muchosucko 23:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a booklet from the UC system which gives them to me, I'd be happy to list them on the article. -- Patman2648 23:48 6 April 2006

This data is old. We need current 2006 stats. Hechung 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Hechung

History

I've searched for more than half an hour on google and can't find any source for the following paragraph other than a few words on Eldridge Cleaver teaching a course:

"1968-69 saw thousands of police and National Guard on campus. Police from over a dozen states were present, some as young as sixteen. Ronald Reagan, who as governor of California was head regent, confronted Eldridge Cleaver's attempt to teach the first Black Studies class. Police used pepper gas on the main shopping street, even when there were no demonstrations. Thousands of police encircled campus, herded everyone under the camera, then started beating."

I've deleted the paragraph, but if anybody out there can find a source, then by all means put it back in.Arcimpulse 06:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add it back but insert a "fact" tag which will say that a citation is needed. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 20:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

ASUC

The ASUC article needs work, anyone here care to look at it? —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 10:38Z

See also: BEARcade (AfD discussion) —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 10:47Z

I guess I should talk about what to add to it on its Talk page, no? I could contribute a bit on the Graduate Assembly (I was on their exec. comm. and parliamentarian for the 2002-2003 academic year. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 22:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"When Cleaver was asked to speak at the University of California at Berkeley, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan expressed outrage. // "If Eldridge Cleaver is allowed to teach our children, they may come home one night and slit our throats," Reagan said.": http://www.cnn.com/US/9805/01/cleaver.late.obit/

Template

I created a template for UC Berkeley, but I've already had a couple of commentors say that it is too large. One suggestion was for sub-templates, but I have no idea how to implement that. Any other ideas for improvement? My inspiration was the articles for University of Michigan and Michigan State University, both of which have become featured articles. Arcimpulse 01:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggested "sub-templates". What I meant by that is this: Create 6 normal templates. One is the current one, and then one each for Academics, Athletics, etc. That way you could shrink the templates some that you'd put on each page. --Falcorian (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah ha. Well in that case I'll get right on it. Arcimpulse 07:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! --Falcorian (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Article size

At 61 kb, this article is gigantic. I'm going to start seeing if I can pare down the Sports and Tradition section. I think the other sections are fine with the exception of the Campus architecture and architects. It seems in dire need of a subpage. Arcimpulse 06:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't you subpage sports and tradition before paring it down? Playing the Devil's advocate, some may value those parts of the page more than you do (not that I personally care). -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Duh. I didn't realize Sports and Traditions already had a subpage. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 18:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


AP Classes

The article says, "99% of 2005 entering freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class and took, on average, 12 Advanced Placement courses." The last statistic seems almost impossible. I think I may remove it if no one provides evidence for it..

I am skeptical as well. Also, before that it says "in 2005 those admitted as undergraduate freshmen had an average weighted Grade Point Average of 4.33 and a 1360 (94th percentile) SAT score." Can the average GPA and SAT score really be that high? Seems implausible at best that the average is that high. Is there a citation for this anywhere? CoachMcGuirk 17:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Here are the statistics from 2005: http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp Average SAT scores are between 1220-1450 and average GPA is 3.82 unweighted and 4.25 weighted (the UC has their own goofy way of calculating GPA, though I don't know if that is which one of these counts as "weighted"). --Fastfission 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Still, 12 AP courses is absolutely ridiculous. Most California public schools don't even OFFER 12 AP courses.

Most California Public schools don't churn out UC Berkeley students, or at least pathetically few if not most. As far as the other statistics, I find them reasnable and similar to the boasts of peer universities.
I have to agree that an average of 12 AP courses seems a bit high... a reference would go a long way to making this believable, or at least creditable. Gku 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there documentation for this? Please supply. Hechung 23:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can it be that they took 12 AP exams and passed them without attending the class? I think that sounds much more believeable than actually taking the respective courses, as that would fill up most (at least half, it seems) of the students' courses during high school. 6 courses per year, at least at my school, and it was a public high school in California. --Impaciente 07:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I've heard of people doing that, but it's not exactly the sort of thing that is common enough to get an average of 12 AP tests taken over an undergrad student body of 22,000+ people. I mean, c'mon, twelve AP tests? That's just nuts. Gku 09:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh I agree. 12 as an average seems almost astronomical. But just wanted to point out that some people do take a whole lot. In fact, wouldn't that add up to almost a year's worth of units? --Impaciente 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, what if the "12 Advanced Placement" courses refer to 12 semesters worth of AP classes. As far as I know, my school district counts each year long AP class as two "AP courses" for the sake of organization.--Lrd1rocha 03:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I took 15 AP courses (12 full-year classes) in high school (I entered Cal with 50 units). I know many who have taken this amount. However, I agree that this statistic seems implausible for an average. Another explanation might be that college courses were counted along with APs. I know a few people who took as many as 15-20 community college courses during high school along with their APs.
I got these admissions facts straight from an internal information packet I received from our admissions dept. 12 might be incorrect, so I will check on that, but the 4.33 is absolutely correct. The 4.25 stat is for those who CAME to Cal. The 4.33 is for those admitted. Generally those with 4.3 and above have many options so our freshman class profile stats are slightly lower. The UC system is designed to accomidate the top 12% of CA high school students, so I don't see why it's unfathomable for Cal to have 99% of people from the top 10%, being the most selective UC.--ckoala84

i think that it goes as 1 ap class = 2 semesters counted on that statistic? Which would mean its on average 6 AP classes, which is much more reasonable (although still alot) 68.121.111.184 05:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization

I went through and reorganized the article. I'm hoping we can get this thing up to Feature Article level! My main goal in editing was to organize it more logically/hierarchially and generally pare down the article by giving oversized sections their own articles. When I started the article was 57 kb; now it's a more svelte 43 kb. I tried not to step on too many toes, though personally I'm still a bit embarrassed by the rampant boasting. (Folks, people know that Berkeley is prestigious; ya don't have to belabor the point! Be secure in its prestige!) I know quoting rankings are a fact of life with university entries, so hopefully giving them their own section will help contain 'em.

It'd be really nice if someone went through and rewrote the student life section, especially student groups, so that it reads more like one section (i.e., with a point) instead of a dozen scraps duct-taped together. Also, the admissions subsection could probably be summarized in a single sentence somewhere else, along the lines of "Berkeley's undergraduate admissions rate is… with an average GPA/SAT I of…", but I didn't feel like doing that tonight. —Gku 11:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! I've been waiting for someone to give the campus section its own page because I got caught up in updating other pages and never got around to it. Arcimpulse 09:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

CS

The contributions to computer science section seems oddly out of place. Mostly, because it highlights a single department, leaving the impression that is Berkeley's main claim to fame. That's not really so, as a glance at the Nobel laureates shows: 7 chemistry, 7 physics, 4 economics. It's not that the CS stuff shouldn't be there; they were huge in that. Rather, it's the placement. Maybe there ought to be a separate main section on research breakthroughs at Berkeley. That's also important because Berkeley's extraordinary international reputation is based on the research, which is really mentioned only in passing (other than CS). Without that research tradition, Berkeley would be just yet another of a couple hundred big state schools. JasonKitrick 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, add other sections and material. -- Joebeone (Talk) 01:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the nobel laureates, it is quite normal that there is no computer science nobel laureate in berkeley, because this award does not exist. If you want to compare numbers, compute the number of turing award, that is the highest award in computer science -- yoann padioleau

Yoann, I think you are missing the point of the comment. Back in April, when this discussion was active, there was a well-deserved discussion of Cal's CS contributions, but an underserved lack of discussion of the other excellent research that was done at Cal, which lead to the Nobel prizes mentioned here. The idea was not to downplay, or ignore CS, but rather to point out the need to *also* include (i.e., "add other sections and material") those other relevant areas. That said, do you know if anyone has created a list of Turing Award winners, and their affiliations? If such info exists on wikipedia or elsewhere, we could use it to better *quantify* the impact of Berkeley on CS development. Edhubbard 22:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Fuzzy logic is missing from the list of contributions to CS. Lotfi Zadeh created it while at Berkeley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.62 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 November 2006

Proposed merge

I noticed there was no talk section for it. I'd like here the idea in full before I make a comment. --Falcorian (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to want to merge them, so I'm going to remove it. --Falcorian (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I had wondered about that. No will, no merge. The article would only be larger with that content. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Searle in the Comp Sci section

As a Berkeley CS student, I know for a fact that the AI people don't "talk about him constantly for this work". In fact, the AI people greatly dislike Searle, since after all he basically said that AI research is pointless, since no matter how good it is, it's not true intelligence. (Not his exact words, but that's the general sentiment you get when you read the Chinese Room argument.)

Also, the Chinese Room most certainly isn't a contribution to CS. I've read the paper. The whole argument is based on philosophical issues and an assumption that we (or rather philosophers) understand what it means to "understand", which, as a scientist, I do not believe is true. The paper provides no real result that is useful to computer science. Granted, it's thought provoking, but thought provoking for the sake of provoking thoughts, while good in the humanities, has no place in the sciences. Compare this with Alan Turing's 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", which laid the groundwork for what we know of today as the Turing Test. Most importantly, there is NO RESEARCH nor SOFTWARE nor ANYTHING AT ALL that is based on the Chinese Room. In short, the Chinese Room is a dead end.

Finally, the Chinese Room is controversial. Yes, it's useless, but controversial. There are many computer scientists who will jump at the chance to tear apart the Chinese Room argument because they think it's utter trash, and by the same token, there are many philosophers who will defend the Chinese Room argument based on the philosopher's (non-scientific) understanding of "understanding". And then there are computer scientists who just dismiss the Chinese Room argument's importance to Computer Science. Because it isn't important at all.

If you keep the reference to Searle in the CS section, you are pretty much guaranteeing this article an NPOV violation due to the controversy of the Chinese Room argument. This is not a threat. It's simply a statement of something that is true.

I'm not saying Searle doesn't belong on this page. I'm just simply saying he doesn't belong under the CS section of the page. And he sure as hell hasn't contributed anything to computer science. Viltris 08:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't insert the name, but I strongly feel the sentence should remain. He's very notable: we have two articles, one about him and one about one of this theories. He belongs in the computer science portion of the article because his theory relates to computer science. It happens to be critical of a branch of computer science.
The section is not a list of professors of comp sci, it is a discussion about intellectual contributions to computer science in an article about a university. Universities are supposed to be about the give and take of ideas, not about the promotion of particular ideas. From the point of view of a university, as opposed to an industrial laboratory or a vocational school, criticism of computer science would indeed be a contribution to the field of computer science. Destruction of established theories is usually considered a contribution to scientific progress (Kuhn, etc.) Now, you may feel that Searle more like Immanuel Velikovsky than, say, Albert Einstein, and no doubt most workers in AI would agree with you. That's your opinion (and IMHO it's well-founded).
But it does not seem like an unreasonable violation of neutrality for the article to contain one single sentence about a critic of artificial intelligence in a six-paragraph section.
It seems to me that it reinforces the idea of Berkeley as being a place famous for intellectual ferment about computers, not just development of one particular OS.
In deciding whether to mention Searle, we should not be passing judgement on the validity of Searle's theory, any more than we should pass judgement on the validity of Milton Friedman's economic theory in deciding whether he should be mentioned in the University of Chicago article.
I say Searle is a famous guy, I say he's associated with Berkeley, and I say his some of his most important work is about computer science. It may be bogus, but it is important nevertheless. If you think his work is so clearly and widely held to be bogus that the sentence should be amended to reflect that—preferably by including a footnote with a source citation—go for it. But, personally, I think the existing sentence, which I didn't write, is fine. It says quite clearly that is field is not computer science, and that his work is a "critique." It links to Chinese room, where the reader gets all the details, including a criticisms of Searle. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
He's all over much of the philosophical lit related to AI, and I've heard, when I was at Berkeley, professors in cogsci and philosophy of the mind talking about him and his writings (usually disparagingly, but that's still a notable thing). He's certainly notable enough to be briefly listed in the section, and saying "but he's not a computer scientist!" is just petty boundary-work, in my opinion. He's a major philosopher in philosophy of the mind and has made a number of well-discussed contributions to theories of AI while at Berkeley, sounds relevant enough for a small mention to me. --Fastfission 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from the John Searle article, his only "contribution" to AI was the Chinese Room argument. I won't deny that this is notable. I won't deny that it's related to Computer Science. What I disagree with is that it's a "contribution" to Computer Science. We're not any better off with the Chinese Room argument. The paper itself didn't result in any new research or software. In fact, I claim that we're actually better off WITHOUT that paper, as it has resulted in numerous arguments, wasting countless hours that could have been spent doing more research or writing more software.
I'm not trying to get his name removed based on the perceived invalidity of his paper. I'm trying to get it removed based on the irrelevence. You said yourself, lots of people in Cog Sci and Philosophy talk about Searle and his writings. Not Comp Sci people. In the intro to AI class that I took at Berkeley, Searle's paper got about 1 hour of attention, which was really just 5 minutes of introducing the paper and 55 minutes of people arguing over its validity. And it probably on received THAT much attention because the Professor for the class was out of town for the day. That and, the class is also a Cog Sci requirement, which meant the class was half full of Cog Sci people, and like you said, Cog Sci people study Searle.
That said, it seems that I am in the minority here, and it is only one small sentence, so I'll drop the subject for now. Viltris 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Berkely on itunes

Could anyone write a small piece on their new service which brings their courses into iTunes and into anyone's computers? http://itunes.berkeley.edu/

Wow. I didn't know that we had done this. I'll look into it. -- Joebeone (Talk) 21:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's more: http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=22039 I don't have time to add this to the article, but you are welcome to. -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Cal"

I know it may irk people from other UC campuses when the UC Berkeley is referred to as Cal, etc., but the fact is that these are registered trademarks of the university and exist as common names for the school. I don't see why it offends people that the school is referred to as Cal.

Just tell them that the school was founded in 1868 as the University of California, thus "Cal", and "California." We see no need to change our name just because we built other campuses ;-) See the above argument on the usage of Cal. Trisweb 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Transportation Library, UC Berkeley

Would someone with some Berkeley knowledge please head over to Transportation Library, UC Berkeley and do some cleaning up of that article? I know nothing about the library and it really reads like a fact sheet more than an article (like, for example, the library hours were in it before I removed it). If anyone can help, that'd be great. I also wonder if anyone thinks it really deserves an article (I don't see an article on any other library other than the main library article. Metros232 11:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll start working on that article soon, I also planned on creating articles for the other university libraries, I'll work on that as well to bring all that info up to speed. Joshlmay 01:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Affirmative Action Claim

There is a claim under the Student Groups section that "Today, a substantial majority of students at the campus oppose Affirmative Action." Where is this claim substantiated? In fact, ASUC Senator Van Nguyen was just elected with a large popular vote on a platform centered on Affirmative Action. Joshlmay 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

South Hall Picture

I do not think this qualifies for fair use, as the picture is relatively new (compared to the age of the hall) and it therefore seems that a new picture of it can be easily taken. Or, a PD Old image can probably be located (I think the library has one), in which case it's a moot point. --Falcorian (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that particular image really doesn't show anything that wouldn't be displayed in a modern picture. --Fastfission 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I replaced it with a free picture. If the old picture showed something vastly unique which justified using it over a free one, I could see a plausible argument for it, but as it is it was just a picture of the building, which we can do with a modern free image. --Fastfission 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
... I'm the guy on the left above the ROTC guy's heads... What are the chances... But good sub. :-) --Falcorian (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

LBNL

" and the University has managed the nation's two principal nuclear weapons labs (now also used for more peaceful research) at Livermore and Los Alamos ever since. " Recently there was a change in management. Isn't Los Alamos now managed by consortium of UC and Bechtel and others? Or is that Livermore? Also, UC manages Lawrence Berk Nat Lab, but this is not mentioned. --GangofOne 20:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know off the top of my head, but I seem to remember it being Los Alamos that was the joint venture... Althought it may also be Livermore. As for LBL, it's mentioned in the form of the Rad Lab, but I'm going to add in a mention that it became LBL. --Falcorian (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
UC (not just UCB) now co-manages LANL as part of consortium (Los Alamos National Security, LLC), yes. LLNL is still UC-only, ditto LBNL. --Fastfission 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Names

I started a naming section to explain the different variations and to get rid of the grating at Berkeley misattribution in the intro line. So far the only verification is from the OMMT, so feel free to alter, move or flesh out the section. ~ trialsanderrors 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

University of California, Riverside Survey

I'm posting this survey request Talk:University of California, Riverside#UCR Survey on all the UC talk pages in order to gather outside opinion on ongoing issues concerning the POV of this article. Please read the article and add your insights to the survey to help us identify any points of consensus in the UCR article. Thanks--Amerique 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey closed, thanks--Amerique 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Some Changes

Well, I noticed one of my pictures was used for the article, and I have to admit that it doesn't look too good. I'll try to get a better version of the file. Also, I created a table for the Chancellor's list, but it might not fit with the rest of the article (style), so feel free to revert to the original simple listing.- Lrd1rocha 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded an image which could be used as Cal's logo in the infobox. But the image does not want to appear, at least not for me. Does anyone else want to try to put the logo in? 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind...the logo appears just fine now. 10:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Other fields

This sentence from the lead seems like a bit of an afterthought: "But Berkeley faculty have a no less distinguished record in fields outside the sciences as well." Perhaps we can add something to this by considering other awards, such as the Fields_medal awarded every four years to the best young mathematicician? Four winners (out of 44, since 1936 when the award was first given)were affiliated with Berkeley

Especially given that the award is given for work done before the age of 40, most recipients recieve this award for work that they did during their PhD or shortly thereafter.

Similarly, in other areas, one mark of distinction is to be awarded a grant from the James_S._McDonnell_Foundation. Nine Berkeley faculty members have recieved one of these grants. Wayne Getz: http://www.jsmf.org/grants/cs/awards_2003.htm Mimi Koehl: http://www.jsmf.org/grants/bmb/collaborative_awards_2002.htm http://www.jsmf.org/grants/search-archive.php?general=Berkeley (7 archived) Perhaps there is some non-braggy way to include this information in place of the current sentence? Edhubbard 09:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history

How did this end up as third section in the article? I'm sure it is relevant, but why is it considered more relevant than Berkeley's scientific, administrative, architectural or athletic history, just to name a couple? Also, the last sentence, "To learn more about ROTC's history at UC Berkeley, visit Hearst Gymnasium's first-floor exhibits, which showcase historical photographs and memorabilia — including ship's wheels and antique machine guns", makes me wonder if the reason behind this insertion isn't POV pushing. ~ trialsanderrors 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Identity

This is taken directly from the Berkeley Editorial Style Guide and should be enforced in articles on UC Berkeley. ~ trialsanderrors 09:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

UC Berkeley
In first references, use the official name of the campus: University of California, Berkeley.
In subsequent references, use UC Berkeley (especially if Berkeley alone could be confused with the city of Berkeley), Berkeley, Cal, or the University.
Do not use:
University of California at Berkeley (except where a comma causes confusion)
U.C. Berkeley, U.C.-Berkeley
UCB, U.C.B.
Cal Berkeley
Berkeley or Cal?
In general, use Berkeley in academic contexts and Cal in alumni, athletics, or informal contexts.

Source: http://identity.berkeley.edu/downloads/ucb_editorial_style.pdf *

Opinions on Professors

"However, introductory classes consisting of hundreds of students are not unusual, and some Berkeley professors are criticized for being more interested in research than in undergraduate teaching."

I'd like to see a citation for the second part of the sentence. --Kyledavid80 00:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a weasel sentence. While unambiguously true, it's true for any research university. Unless there is a survey that ranks Berkeley Xth in teaching effectiveness the sentence should go. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thought so. I had changed it, but somebody reverted it to the unchanged version for some reason. --Kyledavid80 03:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
If it's unsourced it can always be removed. I have to keep an eye on it. ~ trialsanderrors 04:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_California,_Berkeley/Archive_2&oldid=512708621"