Talk:University of California, Berkeley/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Berkeley was a slave owner

@UCaetano: My revision to add the fact that Berkeley was a slave owner was reverted by you without explanation. This seems to be a relevant fact to note, since many people currently seem to be interested to know whether things that are named after people, are named after someone with this kind of behavior. Note that Berkeley actually seems to have advocated for the institution of slavery as well, but this is not noted on George_Berkeley either, even though it is shown in a reference (#15). So arguably, that page should be expanded as well. Then people can go from University_of_California,_Berkeley to George_Berkeley for more information.

Adding this information to this page is consistent with the page on Yale_University, which notes that Elihu_Yale worked in the slave trade. Aapjes (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Aapjes:, thank you for bringing this to the talk page. The Yale case is very different: Not only was Elihu Yale directly involved in the University but he was a significant funder of it. That's why he's featured at length through the article and the article goes deeper into describing him. Other than by name, Berkeley bears no relation with the philosopher, who died over 200 years before the university was founded. Additionally, unlike Elihu Yale who's "claim to fame" and career was around trade (include that of slaves), George Berkeley's claim to fame is being a philosopher. That's why the "slave owner" is relevant for Yale but not for Berkeley. UCaetano (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Right. WP:DUE is the issue that needs to be addressed here and other similar or related articles. No one is questioning whether this fact is true, it's a question of its relative weight and importance especially in this article that isn't about this person. The way we typically address this kind of question is by examining how other sources handle this issue i.e., do they prominently mention Berkeley's identity as a slaveholder/trader? That can be an unsatisfying approach in situations like this where the ground is rapidly changing and most of the sources reflect an older approach; Wikipedia's reliance on published sources and prohibition against original research necessarily makes it a trailing indicator and that can be frustrating at times but those are bedrock principles of this project. ElKevbo (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of people who want to rename things that are named after persons with such a history, or otherwise act on that information (for example, by placing a plaque or such to commemorate this aspect of history and its victims). I've never seen people argue that a name change should not happen or a plaque not placed because a thing was merely named after a person, with no direct influence by that person. Things have been renamed without such a connection. For example, see this: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/2-berkeley-schools-to-be-renamed-in-response-to-blm-push/2310357/

Jefferson Elementary School was founded in 1906, 80 years after Jefferson died. Jefferson's claim to fame is foremost being a founding father and President, not a slave owner. So I don't find the arguments about a lack of involvement or the person's fame not being centered around being a slave owner, to be persuasive.

In general, the issue whether a person is themselves famous for being a slave owner seems only relevant for the page centered on the person themselves. On the page of a thing that is named after the person, the crucial information to give should in my view be the reason why the thing was named after the person and if there is a specific or generic controversy with regard to the name, the reason why the name may be not be acceptable to some. At this point in history, there is obviously a generic controversy regarding honoring anyone who was involved in the slave trade or who owned slaves.

UCaetano's argument that Elihu Yale has a much stronger connection to Yale than George Berkeley to UC Berkeley would be very relevant if I would have written a greatly expanded section on George Berkeley, but I did not. I merely added two words that are exactly the kind of information that are relevant to the generic controversy and that I think many people would be interested in. I suspect that the number of people who want to know that the name of the university honors a slave owner are not significantly fewer and quite plausibly greater, than those who want to know that it honors an Anglo-Irish philosopher. So why note the latter, but not the former? Aapjes (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not my argument. If you ask anyone to use two or three terms to define George Berkeley, nobody would use "slave owner". George Washington was a slave owner, but whenever Washington is mentioned, he is never described as "George Washington, 1st president of the US and slave owner". You mention that those words are relevant to the "generic controversy". No such controversy is listed in the article, and if it was, it would belong in the "controversies" section. UCaetano (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but I reject(ed) that reasoning. The things a person is most famous for should be the primary consideration for the lede of an article about that person, but not when referring to a person in another article. Then the relationship between the subject of that article and the person should be the first and foremost consideration. After all, people are typically looking for information on the subject of the article they choose to read, not facts unrelated to that topic, about people or things that are related to that topic.

For example, the article on George_Washington mentions in the first paragraph that he presided at the Constitutional Convention, which is an important part of his legacy. However, the article on Mount_Vernon doesn't mention this fact at all, even though a large amount is written on George Washington's relationship to Mount Vernon. The Constitutional Convention is not part of this relationship, because it wasn't held at Mount Vernon. The page does discuss his agricultural experiments, which Washington is not famous for at all, but which are relevant in the context of the history of Mount Vernon.

As for the generic controversy, this is of course not part of this page, being generic, rather than specific. One page about it is this List_of_name_changes_due_to_the_George_Floyd_protests. However, I cannot find a more generic page discussing 'anti-racist' name changes, even though this is has been an issue for some years now, occurring in many different countries. I'm aware of such demands in the USA, Canada, Ireland, UK, South Africa, Germany and The Netherlands. So I would argue that Wikipedia is failing at its job if there is no page or significant section of a page dedicated to this issue. However, any such potential oversight by Wikipedia elsewhere doesn't change the fact that demanding name changes is a significant and growing form of activism, especially in the context of education. I believe that the fact that George Berkeley was a slave owner is therefor notable with regard to the university being named after him. Aapjes (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, if there's a significant movement asking for UC Berkeley to change its name because Berkeley owned slaves (and significant means covered by general and mainstream media), I'd be in favor of adding it to the "Controversies" section. UCaetano (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Same as above: This would a question about due weight. I would be shocked if there wasn't already a movement to do this. The question is whether that movement is large enough to warrant inclusion in this article that has to encompass the entire history, organization, funding, and accomplishments of a very large and complex institution. ElKevbo (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that such information should not be included if there is an extremely significant activist movement that opposes honoring slave owners on principle, but who have not engaged in (significant) activism in this particular instance. I think that Wikipedia should give the information that many people would be interested in knowing. Activism has different considerations than an encyclopedia, like not spreading themselves thin, picking fights they can win, picking targets whose defeat strengthens their coalition, etc. If Wikipedia only notes specific facts that are clearly relevant in the context of a larger controversy, when they are part of a specific activism effort, Wikipedia imports these political considerations into its pages and thus becomes (too) political in my view.

Activism against honoring slave owners is a significant part of the BLM movement, which is one of the largest activist movements of recent years. My edit is a mere 2 words, which hardly seems like undue weight. I would argue that merely including these 2 words, but nothing more, is sufficient recognition of the fact that the question of whether Berkeley should be renamed was brought up in the NYT. Aapjes (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: In my view, my edit does help to make the article better reflect the "entire history, organization, funding, and accomplishments of a very large and complex institution." UCaetano argued that George Berkeley is not that relevant to this history and the organization because the university was merely named after him, while he wasn't a founder and neither did he fund it. However, I would argue that if a university is named after a founder or funder, this honors the person far less than if the person is neither of those. After all, naming a university (or building) after a funder or founder is often seen as a recognition of the direct aid that was given to the university, by the person, rather than approval of the person in general. Or even just as a quid-pro-quo, where the honor of having something being named after a person, is 'bought'. In contrast, when there is no such connection, the name can be seen to be a much purer reflection of the values that the university seeks to honor, as exemplified in the person they name themselves after. The fact that the founders considered George Berkeley's other achievements to outweigh his slave ownership reflects how the values of the founders were different from the values of today. All in all, I think that the mere cost of adding 2 words to the article, enriches the historic depth of the article, as well as making the article more relevant to what many readers of today want to learn about a university. Aapjes (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to review WP:NOT and WP:RGW; Wikipedia exists to document facts, not to promote particular viewpoints or encourage change. We follow the lead of the most prevalent reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a fact that George Berkeley was a slave owner (and advocate of slavery). It is also true that there is a significant movement that is concerned with things named after people with such a history. This makes the fact that the university was named after a slave owner relevant to many. Not just the activists, but also those who oppose them. Furthermore, it is relevant for those with no opinion on the matter, but who may be impacted by such activists targeting the university, such as administrators, professors students, alumni, etc. I can imagine that some of them may want to act on this information, before any (potential) protest happen. In short, I think that this information is of interest to many and again, at a cost of adding a mere two extra words to the page.

I see your accusation of WP:RGW and the promotion of a particular viewpoint as a personal attack in bad faith. I have not spoken out in favor, or against, renaming things named after people involved with slavery. I have not made a major edit that makes a big deal out of this fact. I have merely argued that it is a fact that I believe many people want to know about the university's name and thus belongs on the page. I believe that you are disregarding my stated motivations and are attributing motives to me in bad faith. When making this change, I was worried that this page might be protected by those with a strong personal connection to the university, who might want the page to be written like a hagiography. However, even though the behavior by you and UCaetano is consistent with this possible motive, I have no evidence that this is fact your motive, or merely a matter of a different perspective. So I have not accused either of you of WP:RGW, even though such an accusation seems no less valid than your accusation against me.

I don't understand why you bring up reliable sources at all. The George_Berkeley page notes that he purchased slaves, with a source to back up this claim. If you believe this to be invalid, the issue is not with my edit, but with the inclusion of this claim & reference on George_Berkeley.

Anyway, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere and the arrival of personal attacks suggests that productive discussion may not be possible. So perhaps it is better if we seek outside opinions to resolve this editing conflict. Aapjes (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing the veracity of the claim that George Berkeley owned slaves during his 3 years in the US, that is pretty clear (he even "donated" the slaves to Yale when he left the US). The point here is about undue weight. There are a million facts about George Berkeley: he was a polymath, he was white, he was a mathematician, he was a bishop, he was a Scholar, he was of noble birth, he owned a farm, he was a farmer, he owned slaves, etc. The question here is which of those facts are relevant enough to be mentioned along his name. Finally, please don't make personal attacks or imply hidden motivations by others. Have a good day. UCaetano (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but there is no movement that demands that institutions and buildings named after mathematicians get renamed. However, the fact of his slave ownership is relevant in this sense. Above, I have provided two different links about these kind of attempts and can easily provide more. I doubt that you can provide even a single reliable source where someone wants a building or such renamed for the person having been a mathematician, let alone where they were successful. Again, the slave owner fact seems relevant in this context, because the relationship between George Berkeley and the university is that the latter is named after him. In this context, the slave ownership is relevant, but not certain other facts. Finally, please don't accuse me of making personal attacks or imply hidden motivations when I am defending myself from such an accusation. Aapjes (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A movement doesn't necessarily change what is relevant about George Berkeley (although it could). When Sartre or Beauvoir are mentioned elsewhere, for example, they aren't mentioned as "Simone de Beauvoir, French writer and pedophile". The fact that Berkeley owned slaves for 3 years while in the US isn't by itself notorious in the context of the time (even if it is abominable), just as George Washington isn't "George Washington, first president of the United States and slaveowner", and Socrates isn't "Socrates, Greek philosopher and slaveowner". UCaetano (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that mentioning that De Beauvoir was an ephebophile and advocated for legalizing pedophilia can be justified if it is relevant to the context in which she is brought up. As for your second point, I disagree. If something was not notable in the past, but is notable now, it should be included in the page. The level of attention given, should depend on how notable it is compared to other facts and the context. Anyway, you've probably seen that I started an RfC, since we seem to be going in circles. Aapjes (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: all of the campuses in the University of CA system are named after the cities where they're located (i.e., Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Merced, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz). There was never a decision by the University of CA to name a campus after the philosopher George Berkeley. UCB has its name by virtue of its location and the choice of the city of Berkeley to name itself after George Berkeley, so the university is only indirectly named after George Berkeley. This situation is different than at Yale, where the University purposefully named itself after Elihu Yale rather than being indirectly named after him. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, when I read the history sections of University of California, Berkeley (founded 1868) and Berkeley, California (incorporated 1878), it appears to me that the city was named after the university. Attic Salt (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Attic Salt: Wikipedia is not a reliable source - WP:WINARS. So I've tried to look up more reliable information. The University of CA was founded in 1868. Berkeley would become the first campus, but when the University of CA was founded, the university was located in Oakland rather than Berkeley, and as best I can tell, it wasn't initially named "UC Berkeley." For example, the 1868 UC charter (copy here: [1] says "The said University shall be called the University of California," and the name "Berkeley" doesn't appear anywhere in the charter's text. The campus moved from Oakland to Berkeley in 1873: [2]. Yes, the city of Berkeley was incorporated in 1878; however, the name "Berkeley" was being used prior to formal incorporation. As best I can tell, the name first started being used ~1865, chosen by trustees of the private College of CA (then in Oakland) as the name for a development, in anticipation of the College of CA eventually moving to Berkeley (see Berkeley: A City in History, excerpt here: [3]). Ultimately, the College of CA sold its land to the University of CA for the campus that would become UC Berkeley. So the history of the name is more complex than I'd realized, but it does seem that it was chosen by the trustees of the private college for the area adjacent to what they expected would become the new home of the College of CA, and the UC campus was named after that town rather than vice versa. So far, I haven't been able to find out when the UCB campus first started being referred to as UC Berkeley. My guess is that it wouldn't have occurred until the second campus opened (or at least was in discussion), in order to distinguish the second campus from the first. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The same people who decided that the new location of the university should be called Berkeley, also decided to name the university Berkeley. At that point, it seems rather nonsensical to concern oneself with the question of whether university was named after the town. This may be a meaningful distinction if the town was named by different people and those who named of the university can be argued to (possibly) not have considered the meaning of the name of the town, but that is completely irrelevant if they named both. Aapjes (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Aapjes - Your claim that "The same people who decided that the new location of the university should be called Berkeley, also decided to name the university Berkeley" is false. The people who decided to call the land development Berkeley were the trustees of the private College of CA, who had no control over the naming of the public university. Do you understand the difference between the two institutions (the private college and the public university)? It isn't even clear what year the university in Berkeley came to be called the "University of California Berkeley" rather than just the "University of California," as it was the first campus of the UC system, and initially it was the sole campus, and the university was known solely as the University of California (there was no need to identify the campus since it was the sole campus). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

All the points you are raising are good ones. Some time ago, I had the same thought, that, hey, the university was named after the town, but I found it confusing to sort out when reading the history. Attic Salt (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

There is also the point that Berkeley was selected merely because of a bit of verse that took their fancy ("Westward the course..."), in addition to Berkeley being a well known philosopher, and not with any evident knowledge of Berkeley's owning slaves; nor did this university benefit in any direct sense from that ownership, certainly not in the way that Yale did. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the Frederick H. Billings page, the university was named after the philosopher, not after the town. The Berkeley Historical Plaque Project also claims that Billings named both the town and the university after the philosopher: https://berkeleyplaques.org/plaque/how-berkeley-got-its-name/ I would argue that the entire naming section for UC Berkeley should be changed/expanded to include this information. Aapjes (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Aapjes - You shouldn't rely on claims in another WP page: WP:WINARS. Use RSs. Your claim that "The Berkeley Historical Plaque Project also claims that Billings named both the town and the university after the philosopher" is false. You seem to be confusing the private College of CA and the public University of CA. Where your source says "The Trustees decided Berkeley’s name would be appropriate for their new town and campus, and adopted it on May 24, 1866," that's a reference to the trustees of the private College of CA and the campus for that private college -- a campus that was never built. In 1866, the land hadn't even been sold to the state of CA for the public University of CA (see the book Berkeley, A City in History that I cited earlier for the timeline). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The College actually did make a start on building their campus, but didn't finish it. The University subsumed the College, with a trustee of the College being very actively involved in the law that established the University. That person was also appointed to the Board of Regents of the University. So I think that my point stands that the same people were involved in naming the town and the University. https://web.archive.org/web/20090612053620/http://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/system/Chapter2.html Aapjes (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Aapjes - Berkeley, A City in History is the same document I linked to earlier. You claim "the same people were involved in naming the town and the University," but as best I can tell, your evidence is only that Dwinelle ("that person") was a trustee for the College and a Regent for the University. "Same people" is a plural group. Please name the other people you're claiming were "involved in naming [both] the town and the University," and please also state what year the word "Berkeley" became part of the name of the University of California campus we're discussing, and what that name was. You seem to be assuming that "Berkeley" was part of the campus's name from quite early on (e.g., when Dwinelle was a Regent), but you haven't actually provided evidence for it. Wollenberg's history doesn't say that, and I haven't been able to find a document that makes clear when "Berkeley" became part of the university's name. It was initially just called the "University of California" (see the 1868 UC charter that I cited earlier), and it was given its current name, "University of California, Berkeley," in 1958: [4]. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware that the name was changed in 1958. The pages on Berkeley seem rather deceptive regarding this, in that they refer to the university by that name when talking about the period before it was called that. Is it Wikipedia policy not to 'dead name' institutions, but to retroactively use their current name when talking about the time when they didn't have that name? Aapjes (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Aapjes - I don't know what WP's policy is. You could see whether it says something in the Manual of Style, WP:MOS. The infobox does say "Former names: University of California (1868–1958)," but I doubt that most WP editors ever read that and are aware that it wasn't called "University of California, Berkeley" from the get-go, nor do I expect most people want to chase down the formal name over time. FWIW, the word "Berkeley" does appear in reference to the campus much earlier, to distinguish between UC "departments" located in different places. If you truly want to investigate, this is a good compendium of relevant references: [5], though they aren't all available online. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not something to add. Irrelevant to the University. First, the University is not named after George Berkeley; it is named for the city of Berkeley, California - and even that was not part of its name until the university added a second campus, making a geographic distinction necessary. Second, neither Bishop Berkeley’s Wikipedia article nor the article about the city named for him mentions slavery at all. You should start there if you think this information is somehow important or encyclopedic. IMO this is incidental to his life and fame; it’s more a function of the century in which he lived. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The article on George Berkeley does mention that he purchased slaves. There seems to be considerably more interest in institutions or part of institutions named after people with such a past than cities, so it seems more relevant here than in the city of Berkeley page. Aapjes (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

institutions named after people with such a past: The university was NOT named after George Berkeley. It was named after the state of California. "University of California" was its name from 1868 until 1958. It's hard to claim that it was named after something/someone that wasn't even part of its name for the majority of its existence. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on whether to include the fact that UC Berkeley was named after a slave owner

I would like third-party feedback on the following questions:

• When an institution or other thing is named after a person, should this person be brought up in a way that focuses on naming-specific issues (why was the thing named after this person and what (potential) controversies are there around this naming)? Or should the mention focus on what makes the person notable in general? Or a bit of both?
• Is the fact that Berkeley is named after a slave owner only appropriate to include when there is a (sufficiently non-fringe) active activist effort to specifically rename UC Berkeley? Or do the many attempts to destroy the statues of slave owners and to rename institutions, buildings and such that are named after slave owners, open racists and such, indicate that there is a general interest in knowing whether something is named after a person who was a slave owner?

Note that there seems to be no disagreement that Berkeley was a slave owner, so I see no need for people to provide feedback on that issue. Aapjes (talk 14:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this RFC should include subjective phrases like "sufficiently large active activist effort". Who is to say what is sufficient? Neutral language would be appreciated, otherwise, this phrasing might be removed. Also the emphasis on "successful" is inappropriate. Attic Salt (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed the phrasing to 'notable', so people can decide for themselves what makes something notable. Also removed the "successful" bit. Note that at the moment there is a petition to change the name of both the university and the city of Berkeley that has 48 signatures. Aapjes (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability only determines whether a topic warrants its own article; it does not determine what is included in an article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be missing a well-defined policy category that describes what level and kind of detail is appropriate in what circumstances. You seem to have been using WP:DUE for this, but the description of that policy focuses nearly entirely on viewpoint disputes. It does mention depth of detail, but our current dispute is not on the generic level of detail, but whether one specific detail is valuable to readers sufficiently to include it in the page. In the absence of WP:VALUE, I've changed it to WP:DUE for now. Aapjes (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, why is this RFC categorized under "math, science, technology"? Perhaps better under "culture"? Attic Salt (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought this was best targeted at the higher education community, which is both what this page is about and is a community where quite a few controversies surrounding names have been described on Wikipedia. So I thought this community could decide this the best. I picked the category that seemed closest to higher education. Aapjes (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Higher education is much, much broader than just "math, science, technology." ElKevbo (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I already explained that I picked the option that seemed closest. Admonishing me for doing so, without suggesting a better alternative, seems pointless. Aapjes (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I strongly encourage the editor who created this RfC to withdraw it and try collaborating with other editors first. There has barely been any discussion of this topic so a project-wide RfC seems to be very premature. Moreover, the RfC as currently has many problems such as being overly broad and misunderstanding the only policy that is cited. If the RfC stands as currently written then my response is no, there is insufficient information to support including this information in this article. If further discussion does not lead to a consensus then an RfC can be written that addresses the issues that are identified in the discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that there has been a lot of discussion, as can be seen above the RfC. In my opinion, this discussion was not progressing towards a resolution or even a shared understanding of what is notable when it comes to giving information about the person that the university is named after. I was also dissatisfied by the personal attacks by both you and the other editor, both of which I considered to be quite unreasonable. Aapjes (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A discussion that has taken place in one location, once, during the course of two days, and between three editors is not "a lot." It's very little. ElKevbo (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This talk page seems to be dominated by two of those three editors. As such, it seems doubtful that waiting would bring in more editors. Also, many words have been written between the three of us, with little apparent result. Aapjes (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You only opened the discussion yesterday. And you made no attempt to notify or request input from anyone except for those who have this article on their watchlist and happen to have noticed this. There are many ways that you could have sought input from other editors before launching this poorly written RfC, including simply being patient and allowing others time to see and respond to the discussion. And even if you firmly believed that an RfC was the best way to go, it still would have been really helpful to workshop a draft with the editors who are involved to gain the benefit of their experience and ensure that the issue is presented fairly and neutrally. The miscategorization of the RfC is just one example of a mistake that could have been avoided. ElKevbo (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This RfC is my attempt to request input. Your comment seems inconsistent because you simultaneously argue that few people will notice a discussion on this talk page and that there is thus a good reason to 'notify or request input,' but you also argue that I should have not requested comments, but should have done nothing. Do you want me to be Schrödinger editor, who both asks for input and doesn't? Your repeated claim that I miscategorized the RfC is similarly unhelpful. I told you earlier that if you cannot tell me which category would be better, you give me no actionable advice. Finally, I don't feel that I could productively workshop with you or UCaetano, because the both of you refuse to recognize my point of view and want me to adhere your definition of WP:DUE, even though a disagreement on what is WP:DUE, is at the core of our disagreement. As I have written time and again and have had ignored time and again, I first want clarity whether the only information that should be written about a person for whom a thing is named, is the most noteworthy facts about that person, or (also) the reason why that name was chosen and perhaps the reason why people oppose that name specifically or categorically. I am perfectly willing to accept a majority decision or such that disagrees with me, if my concerns are actually taken seriously, which I don't feel they are. Aapjes (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your vague response that there is "insufficient information." I have argued that I think the fact that Berkeley was a slave owner is notable in this context, as demonstrated by the amount of activism against the (alleged) honoring of people who behaved like this in their life, which you can see by the news reports on statues being torn down, including those where the reason given for this act was that the person was guilty of slavery; as well as the renaming of institutions, buildings, etc because they were named after someone who was guilty of slavery. I have given examples of this during our debate, but neither you or UCaetano have said that this information was insufficient. UCaetano and you seemed to suggest during our discussion that you would only want to include this information if there is a significant amount of activism that specifically asks for UC Berkeley to be renamed. However, I disagree that this should be required for the information to be notable in this context, so I'm not willing to accept that the decision to include the information depends on me demonstrating that there is a significant amount of activism that specifically asks for UC Berkeley to be renamed. Aapjes (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to establish that a significant number of reliable sources explicitly and prominently refer to Berkeley as a slaveholder. And not just as one of many facts about him but as a core, defining characteristic that is included as one of the most important adjectives that describe him. This article is not about him so we're going to be very selective about what we say about him and in deciding what to say we look to what reliable sources have said. It would be much better if you had this discussion at his article and convinced editors there to include "slaveholder" in the opening sentence of that article; then it would be much easier for us to accept that there is a consensus that this adjective should be included as one of a handful that are essential when mentioning him. ElKevbo (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That is only a valid demand if the purpose of the description in this article is to give a brief description of George Berkeley. However, I believe that this is not the (only) purpose. Suppose that Bob Example only ever made one donation in his life, but this donation was to a university that in return named a building after Example. Then I would argue that Example's philanthropy is probably not a core, defining characteristic and either should not be mentioned on the page that describes Bob Example, or should only be mentioned non-prominently. However, in the context of explaining the building's name, on the page for the building, I consider it one of the most important things to mention. A building that is named due to a donation implies that the name was (at least in part) chosen due to thankfulness for the donation, while a lack of such a donation or other service rendered, implies that the person was chosen for their perceived qualities, fame or such. As a reader, I want that kind of information, so I can make an educated guess on what message (if any) the people who chose the name intended to send, by picking that name. What I firstly would like to know from you and other editors, is whether you/they actually agree that context never determines how a person is described. If people agree that context can be relevant, then I don't see how one can dismiss the inclusion of the slave owner fact merely by arguing that is it not a core, defining characteristic, which ignores the context in which George Berkeley is referred to on the UC Berkeley page. Instead, one then has to consider that context. Aapjes (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that this university is named for Berkeley because he was a slaveowner? ElKevbo (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I was trying to get you to either agree or disagree that context is important, by giving what I see is a more clear cut example. I explicitly said that I wanted to split up the two questions on whether context matters and whether the context justifies this change, to make progress on resolving this dispute. However, time and again you seem to avoid answering my question, no matter how directly I ask it. Aapjes (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you personally, as reader, want that kind of information is irrelevant to this discussion. WP is not a place for people to individually see whatever they want to see. A better way to look at it is through the George Berkeley article itself: slavery is only briefly mentioned within the context of him buying a farm in the US before leaving it after 3 years. If you were to rank "relevant facts about George Berkeley", him being a slaveholder for 3 years would rank far lower than many other facts. Or are you really claiming that having owned slaves for 3 years while in the US is the most relevant fact about George Berkeley after him being Anglo-Irish and being a philosopher? If you had to define George Berkeley with 3 facts, which ones would you use? UCaetano (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want Wikipedia to cater to me specifically. I made the argument that I consider this kind of information to be informative to many readers and explained how I use such information, to illustrate a way in which it can be informative. If many editors feel that I am an outlier in this regard, then I will of course respect that. However, you are also merely one person and you do not speak for all of Wikipedia. Unless you have a survey or other such information that shows that my point of view is very fringe, you cannot prove that merely by disagreeing. Finally, I've already addressed why I don't believe that a reference to a person in an article should give the 'top facts about that person' in my answer to ElKevbo and will not repeat myself.

You're the one who needs to prove that your point of view isn't fringe and has wide support so it is added. It is your job, and you haven't done it. Claiming "I consider it to be informative to many readers" is irrelevant. UCaetano (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I've already linked to a List of name changes due to the George Floyd protests. The very existence of this list on Wikipedia should be sufficient to show that this is a notable view and thus not fringe. Furthermore, I would argue that the extent of this list also shows that it is not a fringe point of view. In each of these cases, a majority of those with the power to change the name, decided that it was warranted, due to alleged racist behavior and/or views on the part of the person the person the thing was named after, or allegedly racist depictions. The page notes that the name change of Walpole HS, a high school in a town of 25k people, resulted after petitions with a total of 14k signatures. The renaming of Louis E. Plummer Auditorium was asked for in a petition with 27k signatures. It seems like a truism that those who want such a name change are a subset of those who are interested in knowing about racist behavior of the person something was named after.

There is also this Guardian article that not only discusses the issue of renaming things named after slavers (and such), showing that it is of sufficient interest to warrant a dedicated article in the Guardian, but also provides a map of where slave-owners or a direct beneficiaries have lived in England, which is a far greater detail than noting which institutions are named after slavers. Do you consider this enough evidence to show that there is broad, rather than fringe, interest in knowing which things are named after slavers? Aapjes (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

My edit nor my reason for the change involves a call for activism or advocacy for a certain belief. Your response to the RfC seems low effort, in that you refuse to explain why you see this change as advocacy, rather than as adding a relevant fact. Aapjes (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's not what George Berkely is known for, and makes up only a single sentence on his current article, which is reasonably long, so wedging that fact in on a massive page where he's literally only mentioned once seems obviously undue, unless the activist effort to rename it becomes significant enough to garner attention from multiple reliable and independent third party sources. At the moment it doesn't seem to have any coverage at all; there's a passing mention in the Irish Times that's sort of related? Third party sources are everything when it comes to inclusion on Wikipedia, and claiming that anything is self-evidently notable (i.e. "that there is a general interest") is never going to work, as noble as your intentions might be. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 08:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Bust of Alexander, king of Macedon and one of history's most successful military commanders. Also he owned slaves. And he liked guys too.

• Socrates had slaves so I think every time an article mentions him that should be pointed out. For example:

  Socratic dialogue (Ancient Greek: Σωκρατικὸς λόγος) is a genre of literary prose developed in Greece at the turn of the fourth century BC. The dialogues are either dramatic or narrative and slave owner Socrates is often the main participant.

Assassination of slave owner Julius Caesar.

EEng 11:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Your sarcasm misses the point that I'm not arguing that such things should be noted for any reference, but merely for references where the nature of the reference makes it relevant. I'm really getting extremely disappointed at the way people are behaving. No wonder fewer and fewer people want to edit in such an hostile environment. Aapjes (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously what we're trying to do here is decide what's relevant; that's a given. But you miss the point that, sad to say, throughout history slavery, subjugation of women, persecution of homosexuals, cruelty to children and animals, religious intolerance, exploitation of the weak by the strong, and any number of other things we today find abhorrent were the norm and not the exception. We are – all of us – prisoners of our upbringings, and to tsk-tsk at someone born 400 years ago who wasn't lucky enough to be all morally perfect and enlightened and superior like we are today is called presentism. I have little doubt that there are things you do that, 100 years from now, people will look at in wonderment, unable to fathom the horror of your ignorance. EEng 18:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

And you are missing the point that there is a difference between describing and condemning. My edit nor my reasoning involves any condemnation, merely the addition of information that I think many people consider a relevant thing to know. What people want to know will always reflect a time and place. A 1930's Nazipidea would probably prominently display everyone's racial make-up. That would not just have been of interest to those who supported certain policies, but also those who opposed them, but would be impacted by them. Aapjes (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My edit nor my reasoning involves any condemnation, merely the addition of information – Oh please. -EEng 12:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• This should be pretty straight forward. We don't make news so, unless there are reliable sources that bring up George Berkeley's slave ownership and connects that ownership to a controversy on the naming of the town, we should not explicitly mention slave ownership in the article. We might end up making the controversy and that is definitely something we should avoid. We don't make connections but let reliable sources do that for us. --regentspark (comment) 19:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source discussing the issue: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/what-to-do-about-george-berkeley-trinity-figurehead-and-slave-owner-1.4277555 Aapjes (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Without getting into the weeds, what that article reveals is that Berkeley was "extremely morally fallible". Just like the rest of us. EEng 16:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The cited article doesn't say that there is a controversy and I'd rather wait for that (the controversy) to happen. Even then, slave ownership would figure in the controversy section and we wouldn't describe Berkeley as a "philosopher and slave-owner" (unless, of course, reliable sources start doing that). --regentspark (comment) 21:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The article describes the controversy: "“We are all thinking about statues and named institutions this week. The Berkeley, California, case is particularly interesting. The university is named after philosophical Berkeley, and the naming is based on somebody liking the closing lines of a poem he wrote glorifying imperial expansion into America. So, that would seem to make it tainted in name and purpose." However, the same person that is quoted here also describes other points of view, so this person seems to want readers to make up their own mind. This is also what I intended with my edit, which merely supplied a fact, but didn't argue that it should be interpreted in a certain way or that anything should be done. Aapjes (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Aapjes - Dr. Moriarty, the person you quoted, is presenting her personal opinion, but there's no reason to think that an Irish researcher knows the details of the naming of UC Berkeley, such as the difference between the private College of CA and the public University of CA, and the University being named after the land development/town/city of Berkeley at some later date rather than being named directly after the philosopher. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I also note that the George Berkeley article has one line on his slave ownership. Seems a stretch to take that one line and include it everywhere Berkeley is mentioned. I suggest expanding his slave ownership there first (more sources, etc.). --regentspark (comment) 21:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Farms? In Berkeley???

-EEng

The article on Berkeley's farm has no mention of slavery, and that is where a detailed description of Berkeley's tenure as a slave owner would be appropriate. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, Aapjes just added slavery to that article, as you can see in this edit here. Not nice. UCaetano (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The text added there—He also purchased several slaves to work the land.—with the Irish Times article already linked here as support, doesn't seem undue. However, that newspaper article doesn't say much about what Berkeley's slaves actually did or how he treated them. That his first purchase was a 14-year-old suggests he wanted house servants as much as anything. Nor is there anything about Berkeley's qualities as a master. That he lived in a US state that was early in banning slavery, that he believed in educating Native Americans (and assuming slaves as well), and that there's no record of his selling slaves away from their families or imposing arbitrary and harsh punishments (not all slaveowners were wanton sadists like Edwin Epps) indicate that Berkeley's slaves might have been fortunate in their master. Rather than providing real details of Berkeley as slaveowner, the newspaper article makes vague insinuations about Berkeley's apparent "rhetorical nastiness that would make a seasoned internet troll blush". Dhtwiki (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Dhtwiki I don't really understand the relevance of your points. The Berkeley's farm article is not about Berkeley, but about the history of the farm, where the use of slaves seems perfectly relevant. Your speculation on what work the 14-year-old did or how Berkeley treated the slaves seems inappropriate for a fact-based page, unless you have reliable sources addressing those. Also, there were at least 3 slaves, but there is suggestive evidence that there were more. If you want to describe how Berkeley treated his slaves, you would have to consider all of them, not just one. However, even if you can provide WP:RS on this topic, that seems more appropriate to Berkeley's own page. The bit about Berkeley's supposed rhetorical nastiness doesn't describe how he treated slaves, but his philosophical peers. I don't understand why you brought it up, since I didn't include or reference that part of the article in the edit I made. If your argument is that the Irish Times has written a hit piece and is not a WP:RS, then please say so explicitly and substantiate that. If you do not, then this objection seems irrelevant. Finally, that Rhode Island abolished slavery early was in no way thanks to Berkeley, who wasn't born yet at the time and who seems to have been a proponent of slavery, not just in his actions, but also in his statements on the matter. It's also a bit of a weird history that is not necessarily in Rhode Island's favor, because they officially abolished slavery in 1652, but in reality, still had a far higher slave population than any other New England colony in 1774, which was 120 years after slavery was 'abolished' in RI and 40 years after Berkeley bought his slaves. I don't really see how we can know anything about what Berkeley did based on that information, other than that slavery seems to have been relatively common in Rhode Island at the time when he bought his slaves. However, I don't see much value in adding that information to the Berkeley's farm page. Aapjes (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't quarreling with your addition at the Farms article, except that its citation didn't seem to support all the text. My "not undue" might have been read wrongly. I could have worded it more directly. I'm trying to place Berkeley on a spectrum of slaveowners that would include those who were enlightened about how to treat slaves. There isn't much direct evidence to go on. Most books on slavery I've seen deal with the institution when much of the world had turned its back on it, slavery of the nineteenth century in the American deep south. Did RI's 1652 law abolish slavery, or just parts of it? That Berkeley was flouting such a law seems hard to believe. In any case, as others have said, Berkeley is the name of the town and that would probably have to be changed first; and that doesn't seem to be where current protests are focusing. If so, there's probably a line forming behind New York City, whose namesake was apparently so full of slaveowning vice that they may have to rename it more than once. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems fitting to have it there. My comment was about the action of adding the text there in the context of this discussion (particularly when one editor had just mentioned that article). It is hard to assume good faith, but let's do it. UCaetano (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no dispute about whether Berkeley owned slaves or that they worked at Berkeley's farm. Also, there is no dispute about adding this information to that article, which you yourself agree with, while you don't agree with adding it to the page on the UC of Berkeley. So you yourself clearly distinguish the two. Why you would then doubt my good faith is rather flabbergasting. Aapjes (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

At present, George Berkeley is mentioned in 1 sentence of the article; that seems like due weight to me. Of all the things that one could say about George Berkeley in the context of UCB, I don't see how this rates in the top 1 sentence worth. --JBL (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think this RfC is asking the wrong questions. This RfC should be asking: Should this article include the fact that 1) "babybump.com" says "Berkley as a boy's name is of Scottish and Old English origin meaning "birch tree meadow" and an alternate form Berkley is Barclay;" or 2) "babycenter.com" says "Berkley can be a girl's name;" or 3) "ancestory.com" says, "English: variant of Berkeley. Jewish (Ashkenazic): assimilated form of Berkowitz;" or 4) all of the above. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Red herring. @Aapjes:, your original premise is mistaken; the University of California at Berkeley is not named after George Berkeley, it is named for the town in which it is located, Berkeley, California. If you look at the other universities in the UC system, you will see that this is so: they are all named after their location. The one sentence that BetsyRMadison mentions is enough (probably too much). The State University of New York at Binghamton does not mention William Bingham, nor should it; it's named after Binghamton, New York. Washington University (in St. Louis) is named after George Washington; University of Washington is not. Your Rfc (or discussion) is misplaced here. If you want to raise a discussion at Talk:Berkeley, California about what should be said about George Berkeley, that would at least be the right venue for it. This is not. An Rfc question based on a "fact" that isn't a fact, cannot proceed. Mathglot (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a transitive property. If B is named after A and C is named after B, then C is also (indirectly) named after A. If you were to imagine an alternate history where George Berkeley was named George Pumpernickel, the university would be referred to as UC Pumpernickel. I can see how it may matter that the naming was done indirectly, rather than directly, if you were to pass judgment on those who chose the name, but as I said before, my goal is not to pass judgment, but to provide information. The Irish Times article that I presented elsewhere doesn't distinguish between direct and indirect naming, so shouldn't we follow the practice of WP:RS? Aapjes (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Well for that matter, George Berkeley got his name from his father, William Berkeley, so transitively that's who UCB is named for. Or was it grandpa? Are we done? EEng 00:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aapjes: As I pointed out to you earlier, there is no reason to think that Dr. Moriarty knows the details of the naming of UC Berkeley. So that article is not such a reliable source for the naming of UC Berkeley, which is what we're discussing. As noted in WP:RSCONTEXT, context matters in assessing whether a specific article is a reliable source for a specific WP claim. I don't have any problem saying that UC Berkeley is indirectly named after George Berkeley (in fact, I said as much in the edit summary of my first comment here), but that doesn't imply that George Berkeley having owned slaves is relevant to an article on UC Berkeley. @Mathglot: Always good to see you. I posted a similar response above re: the university being named after the city (timestamp - 17:29, 19 July, and some further discussion under/after that). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Just clarifying re: the transitive property: you (Aapjes) said,

It seems to me that this is a transitive property. If B is named after A and C is named after B, then C is also (indirectly) named after A.

Your parenthetic introduction of "indirectly" shows that the relation isn't transitive as stated. That is, B is directly named after A, and C is directly named after B, but C is *not* directly named after A, so direct naming is not a transitive relation. C is indirectly named after A, but that's not an example of transitivity, as the relation has to be identical for all 3 (B in relation to A, C in relation to B, C in relation to A). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Aapjes said,

It seems to me that this is a transitive property. If B is named after A and C is named after B, ...

... then Aapjes is deep into WP:OR-land. You've been around long enough (5 years) to know that your home-grown logic is pure original research and would be verboten in an article, and is completely worthless here as an argument. Whatever "it [may] seem to you", even if you wrote the book on Transitivity, it's irrelevant. If you found that a majority of reliable sources said that UCB was named after George Berkeley, then you would have said that. But they don't, so you try the OR tack. You already have twenty comments on this post, and it's completely hopeless; please just do yourself and all your fellow editors a favor, and let it go. See Law of holes. Mathglot (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The timeline according to the Berkeley, California article is that the College of California when moving decided to name the town they were building, Berkeley, though they retained the name College of California with no Berkeley for their institution. The college later merged into the University of California (apparently one had building and location but no money and the other had money but no property). The Berkeley was added later when UC began having multiple campuses. My own view is that unless and until there is a controversy at the university over UC Berkeley's current name then no mention of George Berkeley's slaveholding is relevant to the article. If a serious controversy arises at the university, then it can be mentioned in a controversy section. Only if the controversy becomes major (e.g., it looks likely that the university will change its name) should it be mentioned in the intro. I note BTW that the George Berkeley's name is pronounced "Barklay" while the university and the city is pronounced "Berkley" (English vs American pronounciations). --Erp (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• It may be helpful for some editors to quickly review our policies about original research and due weight. There is a lot of original research in the discussion above which is fine for a Talk page discussion but to include this or any other information in this article we need reliable sources that directly assert this information in a way that is clearly related to the subject of this article. Using multiple sources to draw our own conclusions is expressly prohibited in Wikipedia articles. ElKevbo (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  If only all the energy expended on this could be bottled and put to productive use. It could power a small town of 10 to 20 thousand people! EEng 00:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• This RfC is invalid because it is based on a false premise: the premise that the University of California, Berkeley, is actually named after George Berkeley. That is demonstrably untrue. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think that Aapjes removed the RfC template. So, this is no longer officially an RfC; just some feedback, although the section heading indicates otherwise. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring over UCB as a "top 30" university, WP:LEAD

@Drevolt:, @69.71.194.34: The two of you are edit warring over whether to include the number "30" in the lead's description of the "top" rankings. Here are several relevant diffs (if I haven't made any mistakes):

• inserted by Drevolt here: [6]
• deleted by 69.71.194.34 here: [7]
• inserted by Drevolt here: [8]
• changed from 30 to 10 by 69.71.194.34 here (and then to 20): [9]
• changed back to 30 by Drevolt here: [10]
• removed again by 69.71.194.34 here: [11]
• reinserted by Drevolt here: [12]

Please stop and discuss it here. Thanks. I will ask for guidance at the Teahouse re: whether this needs to be reported and to get help determining whether there are other editors involved. [Edit: see [13].] Also keep WP:LEAD in mind: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Currently, the number "30" does not appear in the body. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@148.74.225.72: - I see that you just changed "30" to "10" (here: [14]). You're now part of this edit warring. Please discuss it here rather than continue to make changes in the article. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It should be top 10, or simply "top". No argument possible. Take it to the references. There are four references:

• UC Berkeley ranked # 8 (CWUR)
• #5 (Shangairanking)
• #4 (US News)
• #10 (Timeshighereduction)

I would change it to just "top" myself but I see there has been edit warring so I will wait for consensus. But "top 30 universities" is just silly. "Among the top universities in the world" is what the ranking organizations say. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Concur with User:MelanieN. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Me, too. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article and this is a perfectly reasonable summary (that also has the merit of not needing to be revised if the rankings slightly shift and the university is ever ranked number 11 or number 31). ElKevbo (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I have protected the article for 36 hours following a complaint at WP:AN3. I know the edit-warring has stopped now but I suspect that's because all the major players are asleep or otherwise off-wiki and I'm not convinced this won't kick off again this evening. My advice, as a fellow WP:SQUIRREL, is to go with what MelanieN says. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection, Ritchie. I agree it was probably necessary. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @FactOrOpinion: @MelanieN: @Coolcaesar: @ElKevbo: @Ritchie333:: "Among the top" is extremely vague, and I don't see that wording in any of the cited sources specifically in reference to Berkeley (nor do I think it's compatible with the result of the recent higher education RfC, see WP:HIGHERED REP). But weasel wording would still be preferable to a lead statement that involves cherrypicked rankings. Here are the global rankings from the Ranking section infobox (and obviously, the lead should not directly contradict the body of the article):

• #5 (Shanghai)
• #30 (QS)
• #13 (THE)
• #4 (US News)

In light of those numbers, "top 10" strikes me as a blatant violation of NPOV. Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts. --Drevolt (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO "one of the top universities in the world" would cover the situation nicely. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @MelanieN: Thank you for your reply. I guess the source of my confusion is that "one of the top" is a very vague descriptor. Does this mean the top five? The top 20? The top 500? Wording like this has been the subject of recent higher education RfCs about lead descriptions of rankings and prestige, and I'm not sure how saying "one of the top" is compatible with the close on the most recent RfC. This is particularly relevant because none of the cited sources state that Berkeley is "one of the top"; they all just give a numerical rank. Since this is the case, wouldn't the best way to preserve NPOV be to just report the facts and let them speak for themselves? --Drevolt (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a reasonable summary; the specific details can be left for the body. ElKevbo (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Thank you for the reply. I can't help but think that this specific wording opens a can of worms though, since there's no clear way of demarcating what counts as being ranked as "one of the top" and what doesn't. I could very easily see this same wording popping up in the leads of hundreds of articles. With an eye on trying to prevent academic boosterism as much as possible, it seems like straightforwardly reporting the facts in the lead and letting readers draw their own conclusions is a much better solution. There are other important factors that need to be weighed here of course, but it seems like preserving NPOV should be a top priority. I recognize that the consensus may be against me on this one though. --Drevolt (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I think "one of the top" is fine. The rankings are not especially accurate, since it is not clear ss to what, exactly, is being measured. And the difference between 1 and 30 has relatively little to do with an individual's personal experience at a university, be it as a student, researcher, staff, or faculty person. Attic Salt (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

On a personal level, I agree that fine-grained differences in the relative rankings of universities aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things, and that people tend to ascribe far too much importance to the specific numbers and the differences between them. So I'm in complete agreement with you there. But as a Wikipedia editor, I can't help but think that the wording "one of the top" risks verging on WP:PUFF, and I'm not sure that it's consistent with the recent WP:HIGHERED REP consensus. --Drevolt (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That RfC did not result in any meaningful consensus except for rejecting a blanket ban of rankings and comparisons in the ledes of all articles about colleges and universities so I don't see any contradiction or inconsistency. I agree that we're back to the frustrating position of fighting a rearguard action against editors who want to insert this kind of language in many articles where it should not be allowed. I just don't have any heartburn or objections in this specific article. If you're looking to establish useful precedent or figure out where we might want to draw lines then I think you're better served looking in other articles where the situation is less clear than this one. ElKevbo (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Like Yale. EEng 23:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with "one of the top universities in the world." I don't think it makes sense to include a specific number that may have to be changed annually, and the rankings themselves are not particularly comparable. Omitting a specific number seems "compatible with the result of the recent higher education RfC" to me, and that specific wording doesn't have to appear in any of the RSs (if it did, then it would be a quote). If you want to bound "top" in some way, that can be done with a percentage that's less likely to change from year to year (e.g., "in the top 0.2% of universities in the world"). Also, if this info is going to be included in the lead, is there a reason to omit its national ranking as an undergrad institution? (As best I can tell, the primary difference between the national and global rankings -- other than national vs. international -- is whether the focus is on the undergrad program vs. the university as a whole.) -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone: After reading your comments over, it's clear that the consensus is against me on this one, and I think that it's a reasonable consensus even if I still disagree with it. As a result, as long as this is alright with everyone, I'm planning on editing the relevant sentence in the opening paragraph to read "among the top universities in the world" once the page protection lapses. I don't think that this would work well as a one-size-fits-all solution on all university articles, but I think that it seems like a reasonable solution with good consensus behind it here. With that being said, feel free to say something if there's a better way of wording it that would get the same point across while editorializing as little as possible. --Drevolt (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Strange edits to History section on 2 March 2019

The History section is an inaccurate and unsourced mess that is inconsistent with the sourced material on the same subject matter in the article on the University of California. I'm particularly irritated by this edit on 2 March 2019 by User:Tmangray in which it is clear that the writer is very confused about how the original campus was intended to be financed. As explained in the relevant section of the University of California article (most of which I wrote), the point was not to subdivide the campus itself, but rather, to buy and subdivide land just south of the campus (now Berkeley's Southside neighborhood) in the hope that people would want to live in a future college town. Any objections before I clean up this mess? --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No objection on my end. You might want to skim some of the discussion in the Berkeley was a slave owner talk section, as there are some links in that discussion relevant to when the University of CA, Berkeley got its current name and the need to distinguish between the private College of CA (and trustees) and the public University of CA (and regents), as they're distinct but there are historic relationships between them. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to cleaning up that passage. I actually do know the history as you state it. I'm at a loss as to why the edit ended up as it did. It's been awhile since I made it. The attempted sales of the lots outside the actual campus area was important, so should be mentioned.Tmangray (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

UCB as a "flagship" campus

I see that some of you appear to be edit warring re: whether there should be a statement in the lead re: UCB as "flagship" campus. I'm creating this section to encourage you to discuss it here. Please keep WP:LEAD in mind: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Currently, there is nothing in the body about UCB being a "flagship" campus. You may also want to consult previous discussions of this issue, such as [15]. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The cited sources are clear and "major publications and scholars consider the university a flagship" is a "basic fact." And it's quite pretentious and unnecessary to tell other editors to "consult previous discussions of this issue" when the most recent discussion is just a few sections up on this same Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Concur with ElKevbo. Also, there's Clark Kerr himself. He viewed Berkeley as the original flagship campus but then also viewed UCLA as rising to the level of a second flagship campus. This is clear in this page from his memoirs. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

And there are at least three published sources on Google Books that call Berkeley the flagship campus. This one, this one, and this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Prior to creating a new section, I searched the archives to see if it had been discussed previously. I didn't look on this page. My mistake. If you think that that's "pretentious," OK. The "flagship" reference has been added and deleted multiple times in the last day, and no one brought it here to resolve it, so I created this to encourage the "discuss" portion of WP:BRD and attempt to shepherd it away from an edit war. The existence of sources referring to Cal as a "flagship" campus doesn't actually imply that "flagship" status is itself a "basic fact," only that there are multiple RSs characterizing the campus that way. Arguably, if current flagship status were a basic fact, then UCB would continue to characterize itself that way; but it doesn't seem to. Given that the lead already states "it is the oldest campus of the University of California system and ranks among the world's top universities in major educational publications," I don't see how the "flagship" mention adds anything substantive to the lead, so it seems to me that if it's important to someone to include, it belongs in the body. But fine by me if the consensus is to put it in the lead. I simply want people to deal with it here instead of these periodic add/delete cycles. If it can't be resolved through discussion, then an RfC can be opened. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Berkeley's flagship status is well-documented and warrants inclusion in the lede, as is the case with other flagship public universities in the United States. I could add even more sources to further substantiate this point, but I suspect that the existing sources are sufficient. BUjjsp (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that some people consider it the (or "a") flagship campus for the U.C. system; clearly there are plenty of RSs for that, so pointing out that there are RSs for it is beside the point. Given that the lead already notes that it's the oldest U.C. campus and notes its prestige, would someone who wants it in the lead explain what information "flagship" adds that isn't there already? Also, I haven't found a definition or list for what WP means by / considers a "basic fact," but if it's not a "basic fact," then it should only be in the lead if it's addressed in the body. It's not currently addressed in the body. Perhaps an experienced editor can point to a discussion of how to determine what is/isn't a "basic fact." -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@BUjjsp and ElKevbo:, what's important is not the fact there are three references, or three hundred. Even 300 wouldn't be enough, if there were 400 that said UCLA was. What's important, is that it's the view of the preponderance of reliable sources, not that you can find as many as you want that agree with you. That said, "flagship campus" is just a fancy way of saying it was the first one, and there isn't any disagreement about that. User:FactOrOpinion is correct that it shouldn't be placed first in the lead as unique information. Find a place to put it in the body first, and source it there. After you do that, then you can add "flagship" to the lead if you want, no footnotes necessary. Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, and while we're at it, I think we should remove the mention in the lede of 207 Olympic medals (not discussed in the body). Attic Salt (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct that the information also needs to be added to the body; that's an oversight. No, "flagship" does not simply mean "first;" if that is the extent of your understanding of this topic then I respectfully suggest spending some time learning about the topic before engaging in discussion about it. ElKevbo (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Concur with ElKevbo. Anyone who thinks "flagship" automatically means "first one" is out of their depth on this issue. (I specialized in history of science as an undergraduate which means I had to read a lot of books and articles on the history of universities because so much science takes place in the university context.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Since people are discussing the meaning, here's how the College Board described "flagship" in one publication: "Flagship institutions: These institutions are typically the best-known [public] institutions in the state, were generally the first to be established, and are frequently the largest and most selective, as well as the most research-intensive public universities." [16]

I'm glad that ElKevbo was willing to act on Mathglot bringing up WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. It's still not clear to me that "flagship" adds significant *new* information to the lead, but I'm OK with it being there if that's the consensus and given there's now info about it in the body. Since Cal itself no longer seems to refer to itself as a flagship campus, I'm still wondering what that word captures for the people who think it's important to include. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, you are asking a good question. Why is it so important to include "flagship"? Since I can't answer this, myself, I'm fine with not including it. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I had difficulty figuring out where in the body of the article to place the two sentences about this fact. I had that trouble because the judgement that the scholars and experts have made about this institution's unofficial flagship status is an amalgamation of many facts and judgments that essentially sum up to "this campus is the leading or best in the system." The fact that this is a brief, expert summation of their judgment of this institution compared to others in the system is why it belongs in the lede. It's exactly the kind of concise, high-level information that is most helpful for readers and appropriate for the lede. ElKevbo (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, you make a good point. Apologies if it seems I'm fickle on this. Wiki often sees polarisation of opinions, but on this one I'm in the middle. Attic Salt (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I think that this may be somewhat confusing or unusual because I think the unofficial status of this label makes a better-than-average case for including this information in the lede. If this were an official designation then we'd simply be repeating a state statute or policy and the designation might not be well-founded in the characteristics or accomplishments of the institution but based more in politics, history, and geography. But in this instance, the judgement is more objective because it has been done independently of the state legislature and the system administration. We might disagree about whether this makes the designation better or more informative than an official one but it certainly makes it qualitatively different. ElKevbo (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposing to cut down the history section to a one-paragraph summary

This is why I oppose most article splits. When it comes to very complex subjects like the history of UC Berkeley, very few people have the time, energy, or interest to keep the main article synchronized with the article that was split off. In order to do that, one has to be fully cognizant of the subject matter of both articles, but anyone who has sufficient in-depth familiarity with the history of UC Berkeley or UCLA to competently perform such maintenance is already too busy working on their doctorate thesis on the history of the University of California to do anything for Wikipedia. Rather than keep the incoherent pigpen in this article that fails to properly summarize the history article, the best solution is to drastically reduce the history section to a one-paragraph summary. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I sympathize and don't have a solution to this problem but I am certain that this proposal is not an acceptable solution, either. ElKevbo (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say go for it. Stanford University only has a short paragraph on history in the main article. Very short cuts down on arguing whether something is so important that it has to be in both places. --Erp (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Misleading sentence - oldest?

The lede states that "it is the oldest campus of the University of California system". This is somewhat misleading since it was founded in 1868 while UCSF was founded in 1864. The complication comes from the fact that indeed when founded, UC Berkeley was the first and only campus of the UC system. In 1873, the Toland School of Medicine (founded in 1864) affiliated itself with UC and changed its name. So while UC Berkeley is indeed the first and founding campus of the UC system, it technically isn't the 'oldest' given. So I am wondering what is the best way to word the lede to make it more accurate. UC Berkeley is the oldest campus to have always been part of the UC system, but that is a mouthful. Maybe 'the first campus of the UC system'? Founding campus? Eccekevin (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"First campus" sounds right to me. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. Contributor321 (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If no one has strong issues with 'first campus', then I'll make the change. Eccekevin (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

UC Berkeley shutting down rare pipeline for doctorates of color. Its supporters are fighting back

I'm not sure where to include this, any suggestions?

• https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/UC-Berkeley-shutting-down-rare-pipeline-for-15828740.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Mobile)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this yet rises to the level of inclusion in this encyclopedia article. It's a sad story but we have to be very selective about what we include in this article that discusses the entire history, organization, funding, accomplishments, and challenges of this very large and complex organization. This particular institute doesn't appear to even be mentioned in the current version of this article. Maybe one or two lines about the institute would be appropriate...? ElKevbo (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TruthWithin&LightWithout.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Standardized use of "Land-Grant" university required in first sentence of all land-grant university descriptions

Please note this standardization is occurring across all land-grant wikie and now required as per standardization process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.121.207 (talk)

pointer to standard needed --Erp (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose to merge Campus of the University of California, Berkeley page into University of California, Berkeley page. If I'm not mistaken, most university campuses do not have their own Wikipedia page and they can usually just be integrated as a subheading in the Wikipedia page for the university. As far as I know, the Berkeley campus doesn't have anything particularly noteworthy which would warrant an its very own page. Flyme2bluemoon (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The Campus article is sizeable (>3700 words) and has specific, sourced information that isn't redundant to that in this article. Without losing information, to add it to this article (already >9300 words) would create something rather unwieldy. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Would you consider some of the information on the campus article redundant or unnecessary? Genuinely curious/confused since I don't recall every seeing a page dedicated to a university campus and don't see why Berkeley is special. Flyme2bluemoon (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Entering "Campus of the" into the "Search Wikipedia" window returns several similarly titled articles, the one for U. of Tokyo being the one I've done some work on. So, they do exist. The article on this university started the year about one/third its present size and might then have made a better merger candidate. Someone has since done considerable work to expand it and turned it into more of an article that can stand on its own. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• I have to oppose here. It's true that most higher education institutions don't have a specific spinoff article on their campus, but that's moreso because people haven't bothered to create them than because they're unable to stand on their own, and the UC Berkeley campus is more notable than most. The article here is long enough that merging it would create WP:DUE problems, as pointed out by Dhtwiki, and the existence of what looks like a reliable 360-page book on it makes me think there's plenty enough sourcing for the campus article to theoretically become an FA someday. The campus article isn't great, but it's got enough content worth preserving that a merge would be detrimental. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Quite a lengthy page already, and quite a historic campus. The page needs to be improved, but it definitely has reason to stand on its own (this is probably true of most large or well-known universities). Eccekevin (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose UC Berkeley is a very important long established university with a campus significant in its own right. Much like very prominent people may have several related articles; a very prominent institution may have the same. If anything I might suggest moving some of the stuff about the campus out of this article and to the secondary article. Also there are dozens of articles on college campuses. I've added a category to the page --Erp (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As a followup see the category Category:University and college campuses in California which contains some pages on California campus articles. --Erp (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, the campus is a notable entity in itself. Also, per points already noted by others. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The two are separately notable, and merging would involve putting far too much content in this article about the campus.  Mysterymanblue  05:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Both are notable and large enough to warrant separate pages. Wikiman5676 (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't tell if this is still going on, but Oppose for all the reasons listed above. SixFourThree (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)SixFourThree

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US Rankings

please update all University of California and California State University rankings. This years rankings are at the us ranking page. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges — Preceding unsigned comment added by USA Eagle01 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Joan Didion ‘56

Wondering why Joan Didion is not listed among notable alumni? 2603:7000:2F03:2A98:795D:AB98:B6FD:94D4 (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Strategy on reshooting the main photo of UC Berkeley (Sather Tower from Memorial Glade)

The main photo in this article is old, small, low-resolution, and really out of date. It's time for someone to shoot a better photo.

I'm posting my experience for the benefit of anyone trying to do that. I visited Doe Library and Main Stacks yesterday to do some research, and then stopped by Memorial Glade with my Canon Rebel t5i.

It looks like the best time to reshoot that photo is between 2:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. on a summer afternoon. Unfortunately, I see now why no one has been able to shoot a better photo in 17 years. The problem is that when there's lots of high-altitude clouds in the background that blend together, then Sather Tower's white granite blends into the clouds and it's hard to see the tower!

The best day to shoot such a photo would be when the sky is either completely clear or almost clear of clouds. If anyone who lives in the East Bay could keep an eye out for such a day and then stop by the campus to get the photo, that would be wonderful. Coolcaesar (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)