Talk:University of California, Berkeley/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

File:Stevewozniak.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Stevewozniak.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Stevewozniak.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2012 (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)

Berkeley University

Directly following University of California, Berkeley on the first line, there should be "or Berkeley University" before (also referred to as...)

In summary, the first paragraph of the article should read:

The University of California, Berkeley or Berkeley University (also referred to as UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California, or simply Cal) is a public research university located in Berkeley, California, United States. The university occupies 1,232 acres (499 ha) on the eastern side of the San Francisco Bay with the central campus resting on 178 acres (72 ha).[3] Berkeley offers approximately 350 undergraduate and graduate degree programs in a wide range of disciplines.[5] 07:30, 31 August 2012

its never called berkeley university.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Categories for the schools

I have created categories for the separate schools, and then populating them with at least one personn each, to break up the long list of Category:University of California, Berkeley faculty. I am in part motivated by Stanford having each school faculty categorized. it makes sense, and theres no way they get to win this without a fight.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Stanford University has just started an effort to subcategorize their faculty as well. We have a lot more to go through, and the UC wikiproject is inactive. This is really boring work. but, the end result is much more accurate categorization of professors (all competitiveness jokes aside, i hope they do complete theirs, as i HATE long lists in categories). I wonder if it would be acceptable to subdivide by departments? i know some departments, such as anthropology and physics, are rather well known.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Endowment

NACUBO is a very useful source because it standardizes endowment data, but I believe it should only be the "official" source for private colleges and universities and should be used with caution for public universities. In the case of the University of California system, NACUBO seems to report only the endowments managed by the UC schools' Foundations, and does not include the endowments managed on behalf of the UC schools by the UC Regents (see p.4 of http://www.ucop.edu/treasurer/_files/report/UC_Annual_Endowment_Report_FY2011-2012.pdf for details). Therefore, I believe the UC endowment data reported by the UC Treasurer's Office is relevant and should be shown in Wikipedia articles for UC schools instead of NACUBO's.Contributor321 (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to include data from the system endowment, then that should be clearly stated. The system endowment distributes money to all UC schools. It is misleading to refer to the system endowment as an individual school's endowment. --Wiseoleman17 (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that only the Foundation assets should be reported as the school's endowment. However, the Regents portion of Berkeley's (and all other UCs) endowment, which you refer to as "the system endowment", is in fact clearly a part of the school's total endowment. From p.2 of the above-referenced report by the UC's Treasurer's Office: "donors can designate either The Regents or the Campus Foundations as the recipient of their gift assets. Foundations may then choose The Regents (the Treasurer’s Office) and/or external investment managers to manage their endowment investments." Contributor321 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Developmental Teacher Education

Not notable enough to merit a standalone article - I propose a merge here, but there might not be anything worth merging. TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 01:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything worth merging. SPat ^talk 02:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Investigative Reporting Program notable?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/2013710113522489801.html seems notable to me. Pär Larsson (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

This article is in desperate need of a re-write to refocus on basic WP:UNIGUIDE structure and substantive content. How does "Environmental Record" warrant an entire top-level section with multiple sub-sections? The section needs to be summarized to a paragraph -- at most under the Campus section. Don't even get me started on the Academics section -- paragraph after paragraph and tables upon tables of rankings but not one iota of information about degree programs, requirements, academic calendars, enrollments, and other descriptive characteristics of the undergraduate and graduate programs? A list of faculty accolades rather than any description of research institutes and projects? The entire section could be removed and the article would be improved. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Seal

This is an issue that I thought was long decided on . . . the official seal of the University of California, Berkeley is the one that reads "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 1868" and that is the seal that should be used in the infobox. The seal that includes "Berkeley" is a secondary seal that is used primarily on merchandise while the other is used almost everywhere else including official documents. The campus was essentially forced to create a "Berkeley" seal in 1996 and only use is sparingly because of that fact. Even if consensus is reached (something that has already happened for the original/primary seal) to use the secondary seal, the one that was placed on this article should have the Yale Blue and California Gold coloring. --CASportsFan (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In case that anybody wants to use it, the following editions of the seal are available as public-domain files on commons:

File:The University of California 1868.svg	File:The University of California Berkeley 1868.svg
The seal of the University of California without the word "Berkeley" in it. This is used as the primary seal of UC Berkeley.	The secondary seal of the University of California wit the word "Berkeley" in it. This seal is sometimes used specifically for the Berkeley campus. Often it is printed in Yale-blue and California-gold, although other editions with different colors are sometimes used.

--Casecrer (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If possible, public-domain images should always be used instead of non-free fair-use images. See WP:FAIRUSE for details.--Casecrer (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The two sources mentioned above are actually contradictory on this matter. According to the Berkeley seal can not be used "on letterhead and business cards", while according to the Berkeley seal may be used for those purposes. The brand downloads page implies that there is/has been a change in seal policy.--Sapiens scriptor (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Seal

Referred to as "California; or simply Cal"?

I have heard of the university referred to as UC Berkeley, UCB and Berkeley, but never as "California" and especially not "Cal." Who calls it that? Seems pretty odd to me. 2605:E000:7B41:4000:A807:9500:DF18:CB1E (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the common identifier used in the athletic context. I don't know if the logo used by the athletics department predates the usage or merely acknowledges it. ElKevbo (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Athletics uses "Cal" but I've never really heard "California" too much. For everything else, colloquially, it's "I go to UC Berkeley" or "Berkeley" typically.--Hoteljargon (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing for claim of worldwide prestige

One or more editors insist that the following statement be inserted into the lead of this article: "Because of its history, academic programs, and notable alumni, it is considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world." This is clearly modeled on the statement in Harvard University but unlike that article the statement in this article is supported by insufficient sources for such a broad, sweeping statement. The sources currently cited for this statement are:

1. "The World University Rankings 2013-2014". Times Higher Education. The Times Higher Education. Retrieved 10 June 2014.
2. "How Berkeley Ranks". University of California, Berkeley Office of Undergraduate Admissions. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 10 June 2014.
3. "University of California, Berkeley Rankings". Top Universities. QS World University Rankings. Retrieved 10 June 2014.

Two of those sources are current rankings that say nothing about the university's history and in fact only speak to the university's reputation right now. The other source is self-published by the university itself and shouldn't be used to support such a strong, self-serving claim.

The statement is true but editors who believe it should be included in this article must find much better sources that are as strong as the claims it make. The sources used in the Harvard article are a good example; the ones currently proposed are not. ElKevbo (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are some articles I found that mention that UC Berkeley is considered prestigious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyler-kingkade/commencement-speakers-protests_b_5325415.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Home/Education/News/Top-US-university-sees-sharp-:rise-in-Indian-students/articleshow/36352118.cms

http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2014/06/132350/3-moroccan-students-awarded-during-the-morocco-intel-business-challenge/

Sapiens scriptor (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Those sources aren't very good, either.

You're claiming that this university is among the most prestigious in the world because of its history, academic programs, and notable alumni so you need to cite world-class experts in history, academic programs, and human achievement. Your claim is extraordinarily strong so your evidence needs to be just as strong. ElKevbo (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above statements that this need better sources. It sounds a little egotistical in my point of view. I also think there are some statements that are untrue, ex: that UC Berkeley is the highest ranked public university in the world. That is not true, Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial College London, University College London, etc. are also world class public universities, but are outside the US. Berkeley may possibly be the highest ranked public school in the US, on many surveys not all, but it is not consistently regarded as the best public institution in the world, by a long shot. Supposedly UC Berkley was based off of the Cambridge and Oxford model, and you are saying you are better than them? While UC Berkeley has a great reputation comparing your own school to Harvard, makes one seem arrogant in tone, and as if asserting a narcissistic view of elitism. Also there are public schools in the US like the US Naval Academy that have public undergraduate studies and have a lower acceptance rate then Berkeley. I agree the claims made on the wikipedia page are extraordinarily strong, and factually unsupported without evidence just as strong, and sound elitist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.26.82 (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

School colors include Yale Blue or Berkeley Blue?

There has been some back-and-forth, in the Infobox, on how to refer to the blue in the school colors. This Wikipedia article says the blue color was defined after 2007 to be a slightly different shade (Pantone 289 to 282). The U.C. Berkeley article body does imply the official color is still Yale Blue. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The athletic colors do not match the official school colors. The athletic blue has a different hex value than Berkeley Blue. It is not clear if the athletic blue should be referred to as Yale Blue, or if this is the same as the California state colors which in 1955 were the UC's colors. It is not clear if this discrepancy is intentional or not since is is very confusing to have two sets of school colors.Sapiens scriptor (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The hex value of the Cal athletic blue is #041e42  . Berkeley Blue is #003262  , as in the Infobox. However, there is also a slightly different color meant for the web, #003a70  . None of those are Yale Blue, #0f4d92  . The blue defined as the official state, and UC, blue, in 1953, was referred to as Yale Blue; but the International Commission on Illumination (Y 0.063 x 0.204 y 0.165) and Munsell color system (Renotation: H V/C 7.3 PB 2.9/8.8; Book Notation: H V/C 7.2 PB 2.9/9.1) designations don't convert easily, to determine an exact match. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I converted the Yxy/xyY values into sRGB (blue, gold). Note that ColorHexa multiplies the Y in xyY by 100. I also looked up the colors in the Munsell color book. There was no close color patch for gold. There were close matches for blue (H V/C 7.5 PB 3/8 and H V/C 7.5 PB 3/10). The blue color in the book perhaps looked darker, more saturated, and a little less purple than the sRGB value.

Confusing things even further, the Yale Blue RGB value on Wikipedia was not the official Yale Blue. Using the CMYK values, Yale Blue looks like this. Interestingly, the cable #70086 Yale Blue is classified as a purplish blue, while the official Yale Blue is not purplish. Also, the colors in this image on the Berkeley Brand Colors page do not match the given HEX values. The colors in the UC Berkeley seal also do not match. Sapiens scriptor (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

School colors include Yale Blue or Berkeley Blue?

University of California Presidents template

I'd like to propose any of the presidents prior to 1952 be placed in the template for Berkeley since everything was administered from there until the 1952 reorg. I can then change the title to leaders. This would make it more in line with the University of Massachusetts Amherst/University of Massachusetts system; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/University of North Carolina System system. As it stands now, it doesn't appear that Berkeley had leadership prior to 1952 when in fact they did. I have a link showing the past presidential info for Berkeley [1], where there is none for the system I could find...Pvmoutside (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing list of fraternities and sororities

Under the heading "Student life and traditions: Fraternities and sororities", there is a link to "Main article: List of fraternities and sororities at University of California, Berkeley". When clicking on that link, it simply takes one back to the main article about the University. Was there ever such a list and, if so, can it be replaced? Bricology (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have retrieved the list. It was taken down in 2012, but without any apparent authorization, nor with anyone discerning vandalism. The useless redirect, without merge (thus losing information), was certainly clumsy. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the only thing clumsy was the state of the article. Please read WP:List to discover what a list article should look like. Hint: it's more than just a list of things. Most obviously, there is no lead section, there is poor sourcing, and the formatting is atrocious (we don't use hidden floating tables for list articles).--GrapedApe (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you've now done what you probably should have done in the first place: affix templates noting the deficiencies. If you had done that before, then perhaps the people who clicked on the link, 15 or so per day if the pageview history reflects that, might have done something about it, instead of being puzzled by being redirected back to the main U.C. article, without explanantion, until someone had the patience and temerity to address the issue. I think "clumsy" is a fair word, if it isn't being too kind. I like to be pointed to the WP policy that says what you did at first was appropriate, and then I'd see what I could do to change it. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Be sure to ping me when you start that RFC.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)