Jump to content

Talk:University of California, Berkeley/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Fair use rationale for Image:Setiathome.jpg

Image:Setiathome.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose a merger of Associated Students of the University of California into this article. The Associated Students of the University of California article suffers from WP:Original Research and as campus organization, it generally fails WP:Notability.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I don't support a merge, as most of that article is unencyclopedic. It should instead be cut down to stub length, rather than merged. However, as the student government of the campus that spawned the free speech movement, ASUC is notable; it's just that its article hasn't been developed properly. The organization's website provides a sufficient reference for a stub article. Ameriquedialectics 05:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I stubbed the article to the infobox and a single line. Ameriquedialectics 08:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This student government is historically notable. For example, one President, Mario Savio, was a key figure in the student movements. The main UC Berkeley page would be severely cluttered if we merge the ASUC page with it. SteveSims (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the article was merged anyways in December, even it was voted down. I have restored the article to what it was before the merge. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The organized student body has a intricate legal relationship with the University of California (I am still tracking down how intricate.) And since the University of California has state legislative powers (see Hamilton v. Regents), this makes them somewhat important entities all to themselves. Much is still to be said about the Berkeley student government, enough for a separate article. Int21h (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Endowment

US News, for whatever reason, over-reports UC endowments. The last UCOP endowment report was issued in 2006, and may be dated, but is the most current official information available on UC endowments. See prior discussion here:Talk:University_of_California,_Davis#Endowment. Ameriquedialectics 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

UCOP will only report parts of the endowment; I'm trying to find the page that discusses Berkeley's endowment after the Hewlett donation, but essentially, the endowment is divided up into two main parts, one of which can be more freely invested. The total endowment amounts to over $3 billion. The fiscal year of 2006 had Berkeley's endowment at $2.5 billion.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/09/10_hewlett.shtml

The $837 million only includes parts of the endowment and vastly underrates the financial resources of Berkeley.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/education/04endowment.html Kyledavid80 (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is some of the discussion that took place at the UCSF talk page. The endowment figure in the article comes from a UC report and includes endowments of the Regents and life income funds. These numbers are not included by other universities. The actual endowment for just the university is approximately $837 million and that is what the university reported to NACUBO. I believe the NACUBO Endowment Study information would be the most consistent figure to show in the infobox because that is the source that universities use for comparisons and is reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education. So for apples to apples comparisons, the NACUBO figure from the Berkeley foundation is the most appropriate

Alanraywiki (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to chip in here: I believe there are actually two different endowments for UC Berkeley, as there are for many other UCs. There is a University Endowment - that's the big one, somewhere over $2 billion - and then there is the Campus Foundation Endowment - which is where I think the $837 million figure comes from. Note that the NACUBO study has listings for both "The University of California" and the "University of California, Berkeley". My VERY tentative understanding is that the second endowment is more independently run by the university and is more private donor oriented, but Berkeley actually "owns" both. Does anyone have any REAL expertise regarding these figures?Kachol (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Private foundations holding or controlling most or all of the endowment of public institutions is very common. But I respectfully submit that we already have a response to your query about who has "REAL expertise regarding these figures": NACUBO. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Other university systems (e.g., the CSU) also have an endowment. However, for consistency in reporting among universities it seems like we should go with what the universities themselves report to NACUBO. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we should try to come up with a definitive figure for the endowment. I see that the $2.9 billion figure is currently displayed, and I'm inclined to believe it given the citation, but I think there have been some well-founded reservations expressed here. When I asked whether anyone has real expertise regarding these figures, I meant whether anyone "here" does. I don't think anyone disputes the NACUBO figures, but I personally am not qualified to interpret what they mean, especially the dual "University of California" and "UC Berkeley" listings. ElKevbo, the two listings do not indicate a private foundation seperate from the institution, like Harvard Management Company and Harvard University, but rather a "UC Regents Foundation" and a "UC Berkeley Foundation" see http://www.ucop.edu/treasurer/foundation/foundation.pdf Also, you raised the issue of Regents funds and life income funds earlier. Life income funds are indeed reported to NACUBO - see table 35 of the 2007 study - they are just reported seperately. There is nothing in the report stating whether these funds are later added to the endowment list by NACUBO itself or not. If not, then things get really confusing, because the other types of accounts you refer to as Regents funds actually are reported by other universities. These are just standard endowment gifts. See http://extramuralfundsaccounting.berkeley.edu/ENDOW/endowmentprocessing.htm The confusion, of course, comes from a lack of data regarding how much of the UC Regents Foundation money is life income funds and how much is standard endowment. Alanraywiki, I'm not familiar with the CSU endowment, but I you check the above UCOP link, you'll see that the Regents money is earmarked for specific campuses. Again, I don't know exactly how to interpret this. Should all of this money be considered entirely at the disposal of each university? Should only part of it be considered so? If so, how much? Is its management cooperative, and in what way? And if the money ends up at the university anyway, does its management even matter? It's obvious there's a whole lot of unexamined and possibly incompatible data at play here. I'd like to avoid simply displaying a statistic (whether from NACUBO or Berkeley) that no one actually understands, and is derived from data that none of us has access to. So, again: Does anyone here have any real (i.e. professional) expertise regarding endowment accounting, or just plain accounting, that can shed some light on these figures? Kachol (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

most selective?

UCB is no longer the most selective UC campus, UCLA is.

see here: http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2008/fall_2008_admissions_table_5.pdf we should change that in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.73.54 (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The claim above is incorrect. The article showing UCLA 0.1% more selective than Berkeley contains the statistics for New California Freshmen only. If you look at the full statistics, Berkeley is still more selective, with an overall admit rate of 21.5% vs. UCLA's overall admit rate of 22.7%. The full stats can be gleaned from [1] and [2], both of which were found by following the links at the bottom of [3].Vantelimus (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll add that Berkeley perennially remains the most selective US public school--with a 21% acceptance rate, 17% acceptance rate for out-of-state students, and enrolled freshman figures that outstrip even UCLA: median 2060 SAT (1385 on the 1600 scale--compare that to Cornell's 1395), average unweighted GPA of 3.9 (out of 4.0), average weighted GPA of 4.4, UC GPA of 4.2-4.3, etc. This isn't even considering that Berkeley does not take the best single sections, but the best single sittings (private schools like Stanford, Harvard, etc. do the former, boosting their average and median SAT scores). I don't see any dispute over Berkeley being the most selective UC. See this: http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp Kyledavid80 (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Enrollment

The new additions to ethnic enrollment seems a bit recentist. The information in the section would be far more interesting and relevant if placed in historical context. Vantelimus (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of adding historical context to this section. There has been some recent controversy among the student body about the admission policies here, but it should cover the breadth of ethnic enrollment... Android the Andrew (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

University Farm

I added a bit in the history section, mentioning that in 1905 Berkeley was given a university farm, which ultimately became UC Davis. Feel free to re-word, but please do not remove, as it is historical fact connecting the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.158 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

BART

the BART train should be mentioned, it connects to other UCs and runs daily.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.158 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

anyone object? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.158 (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The BART system does not run to other UC schools, it is only a transit system in the SF Bay Area. 128.32.146.69 (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Berkeley College Republicans as largest student org on campus. Citation not working

"Although Republicans are in the minority, the Berkeley College Republicans is the largest student organization on campus.[19]" The link did not work for me, and I believe it is just a link to Stanford's school newspaper...

This fact is untrue. It's something of an urban legend at Berkeley. In reality, the Berkeley College Republicans only have the largest mailing list. As far as actual membership goes, however, they are not the largest.141.161.127.75 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it was a link to a Stanford newspaper that asserted the "fact". I know because I checked (and maybe even fixed) the link a while back. Whether it is true or not I don't know. The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability. Since there was a semi-credible citation asserting the fact, I think removing the "fact" would require an authoritative source disputing the fact. Vantelimus (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Reliability is a pretty important part of verifiability. Why should anyone from Cal trust the junior university? :) More seriously, I don't think Stanford newspaper is the most reliable or authoritative source for Berkeley information so I think it's dubious at best and would lean towards removal if we can't get better corroboration. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a story in the WSJ in 2006 that collaborates this "myth," although you have to subscribe to read it.[4]. A brief synopsis of the content is at [5]. Ameriquedialectics 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
And their research probably consisted of either asking the club how many members it had, or asking for and verifying the size of the mailing list. There is a big difference between the number of people on a mailing list and the number of people paying membership dues. This myth is something the Cal Reps have been pushing for a long time, but it's patently untrue. Members of the ASUC have confirmed time and again that, on their budget report, the amount of income from membership that the Cal Reps report receiving does not correspond with them having the highest membership. Surprisingly, no one has yet wanted to write an article on how the Cal Reps are NOT the largest club on campus. People generally have better things to write about. The only reason the Cal Reps being the largest club is interesting is because Berkeley is such a notoriously liberal school. Supposing all of this doesn't matter, however, and we're sticking strictly to the "verifiable source" standard, the link to the Stanford cite is no longer working. The story in WSJ you cite is from 2006, we're now in 2009, unless the membership supposedly hasn't changed for any of the clubs since 2006? There is no verifiable source which says the Cal Republicans are currently the largest club on campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.127.75 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
If all one cares about is the size of a mailing list, the Berkeley Energy and Resources Collaborative (BERC) has over 1000 names on their list (some of whom are alumni and non-students). I agree than the Berkeley Republicans claim is dubious. Dragons flight (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The line now states "among the largest" rather than "the largest," but the latter claim can be attributed to Chancellor Birgeneau. Ameriquedialectics 09:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Dated the claim to 2006 and put it in past tense. Ameriquedialectics 10:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNI/COTM: WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Month

Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but I've gone through and started to reorganize sections into common headings per WP:UNIGUIDE, standardizing citation templates, stripping out recentist bias, and introducing much-needed standard descriptive information and statistics on governance, student body, and classifications. Let's get this important article up to FA! Madcoverboy (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that the following sections need to be thoroughly "summary style-ized" or rewritten:
  • History has already been moved to the new History of the University of California, Berkeley article and needs to be rewritten completely especially to address the undue weight and recentist bias of the BP deal
  • Student housing likewise needs to be summarized and the majority of the content moved off onto a daughter page,
  • I was able to tame the education section by stripping out the imparsible list of degrees and recentist controversy over Asian enrollments but it lacks any information on the general curriculum and requirements
  • I made a top-level "Faculty and research" section to throw the computer section under, but there is undue weight on it and there needs to be a more thorough treatment of Lawrence Livermore, Manhattan Project, the elements discovered there, etc.
  • The student groups section needs to be condensed. Although it is orders of magnitude better than most universities' with regards to taming cruft and boosterism, there's no central theme or narrative to tie these together. The student and hall government information can probably be moved up into the "Organization and administration" section.
  • Get rid of the tawdry "National Championships" list by either proseifying or selecting the most notable achievements and emphasizing those.
  • The alumni or people section needs to be populated and expanded to include some summary of notable affiliates rather than linking to the comprehensive list. Not a fun process to prioritize, but it needs to be done. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

New daughter page

To prevent individually non-notable content on various research programs, labs, and centers from being unceremoniously dumped on this article after being AFD'd, I created Research centers and laboratories at the University of California, Berkeley to host them. Please go help populate the article! Madcoverboy (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Admissions?

Why was the admissions section deleted? Aside from the fact that the pages of most other major universities have admissions sections, the information was (gasp!) useful. I mean, we wouldn't want something like that on Wikipedia, right? I see that some of the information has been merged into the student body section, but much has been discarded, including a link to a seperate Berkeley admissions page that has a lot of good info on admit profiles and percentages for both grad and undergrad. And for the love of god, I don't want to read a response citing some byzantine editing guideline - this is a page on a college, not a political or historical controversy. Let's be less WP:AnalRetentive and keep things in that are of obvious value. Kachol (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate statistical information. University of California, Berkeley student admissions was deleted. If you want to make a Berkeley wiki and host all this information, you're more than welcome to start one! However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow, what a surprise! I totally didn't expect you to be anal and cite a WP... oh wait, I did. On the other hand, the one you cited did surprise me. Did you bother to read it? I didn't realize that a 5 sentence paragraph that includes such banal, irrelevant, and "indiscriminate" statistical information as average GPA, average SAT score, recent application rates, and recent admission percentages qualifies as a "long and sprawling list of statistics that may be confusing to readers." I guess you figured the average wikipedia reader would have trouble grappling with 11 or 12 digits. Jeez, that's longer than a telephone number! Kachol (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
And the current section includes exactly GPA, SAT, application rates, and admissions percentages. I fail to see the problem. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that much of the information that was previously included was removed, including information that provided context (like admission trends). This was apparently done under the auspices of an editing guideline that relates to stylistic concerns and readibility. But a person would have to be a moron to be confused by the section as it was previously composed. Moreover, the admissions page also contained much useful data which, in explicit accordance with the dictates of WP:NOT (if we're going to go there), was organized in - tada! - a table. The gist of the deletion discussion seems to be that since the page was incomplete and lacking in historical data, it should be scrapped. That premise would delete 90% of the pages on Wikipedia. The whole point of Wikipedia is that entries are progressively developed, consolidated, and updated. If you see an incomplete page, add to it - or leave it for someone else - don't abort the project in the middle. You are not Wikipedia's editor in chief. Kachol (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
If you want to rehash the inclusionist and exclusionist debate here that is your prerogative, but ultimately a waste of breath as you're not going to change any minds. But do not belittle me or my attempts to improve the article. If a reader wants to find out more data about historical Berkeley admissions data, Wikipedia should not be their first stop. The protest you appear to raise concerns the lack of context in the current article regarding admissions trends. Feel free to improve the section and we'll see what develops. I cut down what I perceived to be a malignant section full of stagnant information among many other revisions to improve the article and no one else has complained to date. I welcome your contributions, not your admonitions. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how I belittled or admonished you. You seem to be arguing that, as you seem to have done, I should just change the article as I see fit and "we'll see what develops." I humbly apologize and prostrate myself before you for having the audacity to discuss my concerns on the talk page before unilaterally altering content. And you're right, rehashing the inclusionist vs exclusionist debate isn't going to change any minds, because there is only a handful of people obsessive enough to treat Wikipedia like a Harvard course on constitutional law, replete with endless case citations, rather than just exercise basic common sense in conjunction with the editing guidelines. I think we can all agree that the data previously included was not egregiously in violation of any guidelines, protocols, or conventions. It was readable and reasonably laid-out, and provided useful information. Exactly how, then, did removing it serve as a contribution to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kachol (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You apparently would prefer to engage in adolescent ad hominem attacks about editors, policies, and Wikipedia rather than having a substantive discussion about how to improve the article. You furthermore appear to be wholly ignorant of the fact that the admissions content in the current revision is not substantially different from the revision prior to my editing. Rather, the sole bone you have to pick is that an orphaned, abandoned, and infrequently visited article replete with sundry admissions statistics readily available from official sources was unanimously but unceremoniously deleted. So please, continue to rail against the motives of the volunteers that contribute their time and expertise to this project, the rules and policies borne of years of debate and consensus, and the outcomes no one else is complaining about. I am done feeding this troll. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Labor unions

Who removed the list of labor unions at UC Berkeley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.40.157 (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The list of labor unions is already present under University of California, Berkeley#Organization and administration. Do not introduce lists when the information can be adequately conveyed using prose - see WP:EMBED. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the world's leading research universities

It's a common enough title. I added a reference. Rather than taking it here yourself, you reverted my referenced addition, in favor of what looks more like a spam attack. Why? It's referenced. --KP Botany (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Be sure to add your own references establishing that Cal is not one of the world's leading research universities. --KP Botany (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that it's not. The tone of it is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please review WP:MORALIZE, WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL, and WP:BOOSTER. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Uh, what's the moralization issue here? You're telling me not to moralize? Huh?
Okay, randomly quoted in its entirety policy number two:
"In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information. Examples include describing people as "important", "main" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the significance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section."
Okay, I'll include information about why it's considered one of world's leading research institutions and put it in another paragraph, being sure to add multiple references, blah, blah, blah, about what leading means, and not actually say leading, and etc., etc., making sure I completely weasel around and don't directly say it.
No problem. Please, quote a relevant sentence from a policy rather than bashing people over the head with generalities. You don't bolster your claim any by linking to 4 different policies and advising me to read them. It's like my going into a meeting and, instead of saying a sentence or two to describe what is wrong with something, I slam down five journal articles. This isn't communicating, particularly when you add policies that are not related to anything going on. There's no moralizing going on here.
--KP Botany (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There's little more to communicate because you obviously haven't taken the time to read at least one of the policies, digest their combined intent and my reason for directing you to review them. The language you suggest advances an clearly non-neutral POV using weasel-words (one of the best? so there must be other ones as good or better, right? how many? by what standard?), unduly substantiated by an unreliable source (really a vice president's report at the Australian National University is the most authoritative source for establishing the international reputation of a California university?), and as well as violating stylistic guidelines governing university articles and the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well your reply says you din't read my post, so that's rather interesting that you can't be bothered to read 10 sentence, yet you want me to read thousands and guess what you're talking about. Thanks for the laugh. I'll do what I said above, without consulting you and your policy slambam. This page is for discussing the article, not for random policy slambams. --KP Botany (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I find your lack of good faith and borderline attacks completely unbecoming of having a civil debate about the issue at hand.
  • From WP:NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.", "it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it.", "Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited.", "Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." The rest of the article should provide enough information for the reader to realize that this is an important and major research university, they don't need to be told so.
  • From WP:PEACOCK: "avoid peacock terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information." One of the world's leading research universities? So what? This doesn't say anything substantial even while unabashedly promoting the topic in question. Unacceptable for any article.
  • From WP:WEASEL: "If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If a statement can stand without weasel words, they may be undermining its neutrality and the statement may be better off standing without them." One of the best? By what metric? Says who? Why isn't it the best?
  • From WP:LEAD: "Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them." "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader." "One of the leading research universities in the world" seems pretty ambiguous and startling to me.
  • Taking WP:LEAD and combining with WP:UNIGUIDE: "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"" "All colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia." There's absolutely no need to declare the university to be one of the best in the world to justify its notability because its notability was never in doubt simply being a university in the first place.
  • From WP:UNIGUIDE and WP:BOOSTER: "Watch out for overly general and vague statements... Such weasel words are not particularly factual and usually nothing but the author's opinions in disguise." "do not praise an academic institution but describe it using neutral language and verifiable facts." "be precise and honest. Claims that an institution "ranks highly" or is "highly exclusive" are just as vague as claims that it is "prestigious" and "excellent.""
I assume that the next step will likely either be more accusations of policy abuse or an attempt to engage in wikilawyering to parse out loopholes to justify inclusion. I await them with bated breath. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that's enough folks. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, my objection is not to including the statement in question in this article's lead but to the particular source selected to support it. It's a mighty strong statement but if adequate reliable and verifiable sources are included then I wouldn't object. Multiple impeccable sources would be demanded for this particular statement but I think with some legwork such sources could be located as this particular statement is indeed true. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be better located within the article, also, but, yes, a better source, or this source within context. And it does have to be appropriately stated in an accurate context, no matter what the sources. But, yes, there are multiple reliable verifiable resources, so it's not that bad. --KP Botany (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There may be truth in it and it may be verifiable, but it is assuredly not neutral. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Our references and the sources we cite are not required to be neutral, only the manner in which we report them. I'm afraid that I'm just not following your argument here at all. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
My view is substantially summed up by WP:ASF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." Madcoverboy (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Nobel Prize winner is not very neutral, yet it's used all over Wikipedia. In fact, nothing's really neutral on Wikipedia or anywhere else, when neutrality implies unbiased. Wikipedia is very Western- (and USA- within that) biased. Still, editors are working at overcoming that. And the fact that Cal is one of the world's leading research institutes can be reported in a biased manner, as I stated above, which you didn't bother to read, instead opting to Wikilink reems of policy.  :::Yes, it can be reported rather simply and neutrally, just like the number of Nobel laureates at Berkeley can be neutrally reported. That's not an issue. --KP Botany (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to say it is ranked 3rd internationally by ARWU later in the lead, by all means do that instead as it conveys substantially the same point without incurring many of the problems I already outlined. But please leave the intro sentence as simple, untinted, and declarative as possible. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If I want to do exactly what I said I'd do above, go ahead? I intend to. --KP Botany (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It was hard to determine if you said anything substantive amidst your provocations and attacks, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I find much of the worrying about Peacockery, etc. to be a perverse bias in itself. The fact is that Berkeley is one of the world's leading research universities. Having to eschew that wording because someone finds it politically unpalatable doesn't change the truth of the statement. I disagree that multiple impeccable sources would be demanded for the statement. Just one impeccable source should suffice, and the ARWU is a sufficient source. Let's not make Wikipedia unreadably bland by avoiding true statements because someone thinks they present a subject in a positive light. Neutral point of view doesn't mean avoid the truth if it paints the subject in a positive light according to some editor's standard (or bias). Vantelimus (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this can be frustrating with Wikipedia. I got called for calling a flower beautiful, once. It can be put in in a substantive way, well sourced, though, so it's not that big of an issue. --KP Botany (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that what an organization says about itself and its members is not sufficient. To claim that something is one of the best in the world is a pretty heady claim that requires substantial evidence. --ElKevbo (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There actually exist things that are the best in the world. Some of those things are even common knowledge, such as, say, that Berkeley is one of the world's leading research institutions. Those claims can be verified. The ARWU is one such source, and currently perhaps the most objective source, to verify it. I'm afraid the sensitivity over peacockery works against clear and concise communication at times. Vantelimus (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Vantelimus. NPOV doesn't mean report as if all things were equal. Ameriquedialectics 18:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In this particular instance, I am sure that such evidence can be provided. It just hasn't been done yet. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Look, I'm not disputing that UC Berkeley is one of the world's leading research and education institutions by many metrics, but that exact statement is also a value judgment or opinion (along with being weaselily-worded). If you can find a reliable source giving extraordinary proof, attribute it to that source but don't tell readers what to think. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, if you want to include a phrase summarizing ARWU in the lead to substantiate the "common knowledge" regarding Berkeley's stature, you're potentially embarking on a slippery slope where any university ranked in the top 250, 100, etc. in ARWU can make the same claim. Other editors may doubt my commitment to "clear and concise communication" but I likewise don't understand their hang-ups about continually asserting quality/prestigousness/reputation in these articles. Is Einstein the most-widely recognized scientist ever? Beethoven one of the most influential composers? Las Vegas the most interesting city in the world? The "common knowledge" answer may be yes and you may well be able reliable source asserting the same - but, Wikipedia is not in the business of making value judgments, only reporting on others'. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've already stated above, in my first response to you, that this is not an issue, stating how and why, not in the lead paragraph, etc., being explicit, rather than saying leading, and now ElKevbo is saying extraordinary claims need more than one source, so I'm not sure what you're arguing, when we've agreed to what you've requested, from square one.
  • "Okay, I'll include information about why it's considered one of world's leading research institutions and put it in another paragraph, being sure to add multiple references, blah, blah, blah, about what leading means, and not actually say leading, and etc., etc., making sure I completely weasel around and don't directly say it."
It's all cool, so there's no purpose, that I can see, in continuing to demand what I agreed to in my first response. --KP Botany (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In response to Madcoverboy: I appreciate your slippery slope argument and agree with you on that. I see that using a different phrasing when citing the ARWU would avoid the problem, e.g. "Berkeley has consistently scored among the top five research universities in the world according to the ARWU since its inception."
About your comment concerning editors "continually asserting quality/prestigousness/reputation in these articles"... I note your examples do not help your argument. The lead for the article on Einstein says "the name "Einstein" has become synonymous with genius, and he has since been regarded as one of the most influential people in human history". The lead for the Beethoven article states that Beethoven "remains one of the most acclaimed and influential composers of all time". So, I guess I'm missing your point. Wikipedia editors for other subjects seem to have no problem stating well-known facts about the quality/prestige/reputation of their subjects.
I think it does a disservice to the reader (in fact, misleads the reader) to avoid statements about quality, prestige, and reputation in university articles. Like it or not, a student will be exposed to a greater diversity of thought and opinion at a great research university than they will at your typical state college. Like it or not, that exposure will, on average, result in a better educated individual. Like it or not, the world knows of these differences and expresses social and business preferences based on the reputation and prestige of a university. Like it or not, an editorial policy won't change that regardless of how many Wikipedia editors wish it weren't so. Such policies will simply assure the articles are incomplete, that is, non-encyclopedic.
So, how does a kid growing up with a disadvantaged background, say, in the inner city of a first-world country or the tules of a third-world country, learn about the prestige and reputation of Harvard or Berkeley or some random state university by reading Wikipedia? If your answer is "they don't", then you are basically ceding the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia in the service of some other goal. Vantelimus (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Yes, I probably shot my argument in the proverbial foot by referencing two individuals whose esteem cannot likely ever be rivaled. It is not the case with universities that there is one single university whose reputation exceeds all others (You say Harvard, I say Oxford. You say Berkeley, I say Stanford. You say Chicago, I saw MIT ...etc.) Perhaps if I had chosen Euler, Planck, Haydn, or Dvorak my point would have been better made. The idea of quality and prestige are problematic in of themselves, trying to apply them to organizations as large and complex as universities doesn't help. As the immediate dispute about the content may have reached some consensus and the discussion is now getting a bit meta, may I suggest we take it to WT:UNI? I'd be happy to respond to Vantelimus points in more detail. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, making it a more general discussion of how to deal with the issue on a policy/guideline page. And, no, you didn't shoot yourself in the foot by mentioning Einstein and Beethoven, you showed you meant what you were saying. --KP Botany (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

History section requires more summarization

Having taken a look at the history section here and in the history article, there appears to be pretty extensive overlap. The history article is 23,000 characters, and the history section is 21,000 characters, or only 9% smaller. This can be a big problem for future article development due to the effects of forking; I suggest the history section here be significantly stripped down and summarized. Many sections should be merged, and relatively unimportant facts should be omitted (even if sourced). I can help work on this. The alternative is to move the history article back here. Dcoetzee 22:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because I overhauled the article back in December and started to spin out lengthy sections into standalone articles by copy-and-pasting the content there. To the extent that no one has edited the History of UCB article, it should be a perfect representation of what the history section used to look like. Anyway, because all the original content is on the History of UCB page, feel free to snip away at the section! Madcoverboy (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I did some heavy summarization, got it down to 10,000 characters including references (4700 chars of prose), hopefully this is better. :-) Dcoetzee 00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Day and night difference, excellent job! Madcoverboy (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Alumni

User:Waxwon has gone and spruced up the alumni section. However, I am concerned that it gives undue weight to computer science-related topics to the detriment of other alumni contributions in business, politics, art, athletics, etc. I am also worried that the gallery section is far too long and though I can't dredge up a specific policy, galleries are frowned upon during WP:FAC. The gallery likewise exhibits a similar CS-bias. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

He forgot William Hung. Ameriquedialectics 20:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody please add Jerry Brown. He is surely more important than 90% of these people. Kthx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.154.109.225 (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


Alumni in business, politics, arts, and athletics have all been added since Madcoverboy posted his concerns. Reduced gallery now has fewer CS people (all the Turing Award laureates completely wiped out, which is a shame), and somebody even added Jerry Brown. Removing the tags, otherwise leaving them up there looks like WP:Tag bombing. Waxwon (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable people

Should not the gallery be moved to commons? UnivBerk (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd support someone else doing that. Ameriquedialectics 16:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

New aerial photo

Not sure if this is useful, but I got a new aerial photo of part of the campus (right). Dcoetzee 08:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Maybe the other pic would work better in the city article. Ameriquedialectics 16:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Web Bulletin Forum

I deleted the Berkeleylive.net link under student groups. Berkeleylive.net was claiming it is "UC Berkeley's web bulletin forum...created by the collaborative effort between administrators, graduate and undergraduate students" is completely false. When going to the TOS of Berkeleylive.net it states, "This website does not have any official affiliation with University of California, Berkeley or UC Regents."

I'm a new user and I hope I didn't delete anything to hastily. I feel though that perhaps someone should keep an eye on this. Gobblez (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! We rely on all our reader's eyes to be alert to this sort of cruft. See WP:EL for more on guidelines on external links. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I changed the title to make this section more informative and less misleading. To clarify, many websites that have an affiliation with the University of California, Berkeley requires the statement "does not have any official affiliation with University of California, Berkeley or UC Regents" to avoid legal issues. BerkeleyLive.net was created by an effort between different student groups under consultation from administrators including Big Ideas @ Berkeley, IST, and Campus Life and Leadership to name a few. I am currently a student there. PM me if you want to talk about this more. Thank you Madcoverboy for the guidelines on external links. Aotcsw (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Architecture section

My family and I toured the Berkeley campus in 2007 - the tour guide mentioned the "brutalism" Brutalist architecture period of the mid 20th century when many of the concrete buildings were erected.

Should this be added to the Architecture section? Wikip rhyre (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

infobox logo removal/inclusion

A discussion regarding logo removal/inclusion that occurred during a recent edit to this article is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Logo as identifying marks in infoboxes.

UC Berkeley fact error

Please correct the one of the UC Berkeley statistics; the actual size of the campus as listed by UC Berkeley is: UC Berkeley occupies a 1,232 acre campus with a sylvan 178-acre central core Thank you,75.33.193.153 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a gallery of 35 alumni that has been added and deleted. I'm setting up a discussion here. This gallery seems more appropriate at List of University of California, Berkeley alumni rather than overwhelming an article about the university. Thoughts? Alanraywiki (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The alumni section is way too long, even without the gallery. I say narrow the alumni section down to two or three paragraphs and move everything else to List of University of California, Berkeley alumni. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the gallery. And I agree with Mabeenot about narrowing down that section. That includes removing sentences like "Other alumni have turned their gaze to the galactic universe." Alanraywiki (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Madcoverboy stated his “concerns” on March 28, 2009 (see above section #Alumni) that the gallery was too long, although even he did not outright advocate removing the entire gallery -- and he himself did not delete it. From the time he posted his opinion 8 months ago up until the time the gallery was first deleted November 21, 2009, this article had received about 970,000 page views and almost 300 edits, which demonstrates that the consensus of viewers and editors has been to allow the gallery to stay. Numbchuckles (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Numbchuckles, inaction does not prove consensus. It just means that either nobody was paying attention to this section at the bottom of the article or nobody was bold enough to do something about it. There are several problems associated with having a gallery like this:
  1. Somebody has to choose which alumni get highlighted. As more and more editors add their favorite person, it results in the size of the gallery ballooning out of control. It becomes a NPOV and undue weight problem really fast. For example, an unsigned comment from August requests "Somebody please add Jerry Brown. He is surely more important than 90% of these people. Kthx."
  2. A picture gallery is not necessary to understand who these people are. If readers want to know what Earl Warren looks like, all they have to do is click on the blue link that leads to his page.
  3. The gallery clutters the section. You have to scroll past rows of pictures to actually get to the first paragraph of text.
  4. Including this picture gallery serves one primary purpose, to brag about the number of notable alumni from Berkley. That's Boosterism at its worst.
  5. This gallery takes liberties with the term "alumni" since inanimate objects like a computer mouse have been included.
  6. A more appropriate place for extensive coverage of Berkley alumni is in the separate article on Berkley alumni. That's why it exists. The section in UC Berkley's main article should give a brief overview of the kinds of people who graduated from Berkley with a small number of examples, not a gallery of our favorite alumni followed by 13 paragraphs listing everyone we can find on Wikipedia.
I support Alanraywiki's handling of the section, but I'll leave the gallery where it is until we get this disagreement settled. The article has recently been nominated for a peer review, so we'll get a chance to see what other editors have to say.
-Mabeenot (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
My inaction to remove to section should not construed as an endorsement of it. I recommend removing the gallery and severely summarizing the section, especially with respect to its demonstrable bias towards technologists. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


My (Numbchuckles) comments regarding Mabeenot’s comments:
  • “...either nobody was paying attention to this section at the bottom of the article or nobody was bold enough to do something about it....:” Or it could mean that almost a million people, during a period of almost eight months, saw the section and the gallery and thought it was useful and informative. Certainly over such a long period and with a large number of page views, somebody would have been “bold”. Why the “boldness” to delete the gallery on the same day as the 2009 Big Game (football) (November 21, 2009)? Probably the same reason that some people have actually been emboldened to commit more audacious pranks in the real physical world (see Stanford Axe and Phoenix Five (prank))
  • “...nobody was bold enough to do something about it...”. Yet editors were “bold” enough to make almost 300 edits to other parts of the article, and left the "Notable people" section alone, which demonstrates that most editors were comfortable with the section‘s contents. From April 2009 to November 21, 2009, this discussion page had received over 1200 page views, with only one person responding to the “concerns“, so apparently most editors were not bothered by the gallery. (I find it difficult to believe that 1200 page views somehow "missed" the comments regarding the gallery)
  • “...it results in the size of the gallery ballooning out of control...Somebody please add Jerry Brown...” And yet nobody did add Jerry Brown, and the gallery did not balloon out of control. The current gallery provides a nice balance of people -- a row of people in government, a couple of rows of people in technology and science, a couple of rows of people from popular culture who have been mentioned in the news, a row of astronauts, and a row of people who blend science with the arts. Moreover, the gallery is (from a physical layout) cleanly "rectangular", and therefore aesthetically pleasing. I think future efforts should be made to maintain the gallery at its current dimensions.
  • “... If readers want to know what Earl Warren looks like, all they have to do is click on the blue link that leads to his page...” Wikimedia's image collection is incomplete. Not every linked name has a picture due to copyright restrictions. Some people with Wikipedia articles have no pictures at all.
  • “...gallery clutters the section...” For some people, a block of text is a boring and cluttered chore, and will be ignored. Some people like to look at photos rather than text, such as:
  • people whose native language is not English,
  • people who are have various degrees of dyslexia
  • people who are more visual than verbal. Why is there a market for graphic novels? Would you rather read a novel, or watch the movie based on the novel first before bothering to read it?
  • “...That's Boosterism at its worst...” On the contrary, the WP: BOOSTER article states “Allow the facts to speak for themselves and let the reader decide….Assert facts, not opinions… Move detailed listings of facts deeper into the body of the article.” The pictures do not assert opinions.
  • “...takes liberties with the term ‘alumni’ since inanimate objects like a computer mouse have been included...” I can see where this “liberty” can be justified: Non-technical people or people unfamiliar with the English language might not be familiar with the term “computer mouse”, and due to the nature of the term, might confuse it with some computer depiction/icon/caricature of the mammal mouse. Therefore, when it is stated that he “invented the computer mouse” without a picture, some readers might misinterpret what that means.
  • “...a brief overview of the kinds of people...with a small number of examples...” I disagree. I think the section as it stands is inoffensive, interesting, and informative, and appeals to people who like to read text and those who don’t. The section and the gallery are fine.
Numbchuckles (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I concur with those who think that a gallery of 35 photos is too much. I also agree that the presence of something in an article is not necessarily indicative of a consensus for the inclusion of that content. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Support forking the gallery per WP:SS. Ameriquedialectics 17:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced statements added by IP editor

An IP editor is repeatedly adding that certain companies were founded by alumni of Cal without providing sources. WP:V, a Wikipedia policy, states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged [...] must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The editor refuses to provide sources. To avoid an edit war, I'm bringing my concerns here to the talk page as per the WP:BRD cycle. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 21:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed (added cites) -- Waxwon (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Companies & rankings in the lead

Following my removal of a list of alumni-founded companies and ARWU & NRC rankings from the lead, an IP editors (whose only two edits are to reinforce rankings on Berkeley-related pages) reverted it.

  1. Rankings should not be placed in the lead because they give undue weight to one particular methodology (in the case of ARWU, weighted 30% by the number of Nobel Laureates produced) and inevitably are selected and included to abet boosterism and peacockery. Leave rankings in the Academic section.
  2. The inclusion of a laundry list of companies founded by Berkeley alumni is unencyclopedic and likewise gives undue weight with respect to other topics covered in the article and only serves booster-purposes. Leave the laundry list in the Alumni section.

I welcome other editors' thoughts on this to develop a consensus. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The long list of companies in the lead section continues to be posted and then reverted. I concur that this list is more appropriate in the alumni section and the companies are only indirectly related to the university itself. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Student Activism

There should be a section for student activism. I don't know if this should be a subsection of the History, or under its own heading, but historically there have been plenty of protest movements besides the Free Speech Movement, and there have been demonstrations against the fee hikes at least since fall of 2009. Maybe even older than that? Here are some links for the recent ones.
March 2010
Regents meeting, November 2010
~need a good source for the big Wheeler Hall occupation in November 2009...
one of the student protest organizations

UCB

The University of California, Berkeley almost never goes by UCB and it's use in conversation is frowned upon. This fact is stated further down in the History section of the article. I continually have to delete UCB at the top of the page because saying that the university is also called UCB is completely false. If anything, UC is used more on campus and in the city of Berkeley to talk about the university. Please do not add UCB to one of the other names for the university. --Andyhi18 (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That its use is "frowned upon" is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if it is commonly used. I've certainly never heard of it but I'm neither terribly familiar with the institution nor do I live anywhere near it. However, that the institution has felt it necessary to note that its use is discouraged seems to be prima facie evidence that the abbreviation is or was in common usage during at least one point in history. ElKevbo (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It most certainly is not commonly used, when unknowing people use UCB, they are quickly corrected by people who know that this is frowned upon. Like I said, if anything, UC is commonly used in Berkeley and on the UC campus to describe the school. --Andyhi18 (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The policy of the University itself is to use, as short form, "UC Berkeley" in academics and "Cal" in sports. UCB is certainly used by some, but it is not more common than the other forms and shouldn't be used beyond the lead section. The reason it exists is because that is the common form used for other UC campuses, like UCLA and UCSD, not because it was prevalent at one point in history.--Jiang (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you point to an example of two of this usage, perhaps in some system-level reports? ElKevbo (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/7944, http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/minutes/2010/hs1.pdf (contrast w/ UCLA)--Jiang (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Research nuclear reactor

The campus once hosted a research reactor, which i would think is highly notable, for all sorts of reasons.[6](mercurywoodrose)75.61.141.184 (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor Article Structure + Improvement Projects (woot!)

I have corrected a number of redundancies by streamlining info according to subject (without altering content), but this looks to be but one small step in the direction of a more intelligible article. A few bugs in the article and my suggested improvement projects:

1. The section on University Housing should be trimmed to a neat overview paragraph, with further information on university housing found in the main article on UCB uni housing.

2. The Student Groups section should link to a main article on UCB student groups. There are much too many groups to represent in an article that is, in my opinion, data-saturated. Also, that only a few student groups of maaany have their names mentioned in this article overrepresents them and gives the reader a skewed perception of their importance and impact relative to other groups. Though all of these groups are important to their respective communities, they are only a small selection of the myriad of very impactful student groups at UCB.

3. The Notable Alumni section is very long and difficult to follow for the average Internet attention-span. It'd be better to create subsections according to year graduated or other variable--or even a separate article on notable UCB alumni.

4. Financial aide has been a very hot topic at the university, especially in the last few years as show in large-scale actions by students, faculty and staff. This section is extremely relevant to actuality, and as such should be developed! Knowledge power is the power and potential of Wikipedia, peeps!

Eekiv (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hired by UCB Public Affairs!

Hey all!

I'm checking in to say that I have been hired by the UC Berkeley Office of Public Affairs as an independent contractor to work on the UCB Wikipedia article. Story of how this happens follows. Skip to next paragraph if more interested in the ethics of paid editorship. While doing the above edits I found my underemployed self thinking "hah! They should HIRE me to do this!" Then I thought "well, maybe they COULD hire me to do this". Long story short, a job proposal and interview later the PA Office hired me to do a little editing. I'm doing an initial 10 hours as they test me out and see how many hours they should allot me.
I had an ethical crisis while considering pursuing a job proposal, and decided it would be wise to consult a couple friends of mine who are regular editors and who have volunteered with Wikimedia outside of their editing. A recommendation I heard from all, and which I am taking in writing this talk item to y'all, is to be transparent with you about my position as a contractor for UCB and with my intentions. I want you to know that while my edits on this page will now be edits I do as a contractor, my heart lies with the free knowledge movement, and my intention is not to promote UC Berkeley from a marketing standpoint, but to promote the expansion of knowledge on the university. Also, for your information, I am editing from my regular (and only) account, which I've had since 2010. This all said, if you find any biases in my editing that favor the university, or information that requires an expert verification, please point these out to me.
My first edit will be an expansion of information on student financial aid and scholarships. Most of my information will come from information found through the Office of Financial Aid and Scholarships, and the UC Controller's Office. I appreciate any constructive criticism and any knowledge resources you think would help me to create a non-biased view and a rich and full article. I am not an expert in these issues, and would warmly appreciate the contribution of editors who are.

Thanks! Please follow me and my edits!
Eekiv (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobel laureates

When the article states that "University faculty, alumni, and researchers have won 68 Nobel Prizes", does it mean that 68 nobel prizes have been awarded based on work made by the reciever at Berkeley, or that at some point, a (68) Nobel laureate(s) has worked at Berkeley?--Nwinther (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_California,_Berkeley/Archive_4&oldid=1051065885"