Talk:University of California, Los Angeles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article candidateUniversity of California, Los Angeles is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
June 12, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 4, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Shakira attended UCLA in disguise as a boy in 2007[edit]

By this reason, should Shakira be added to the famous alumni list? 2603:9001:E08:A6D:D8E2:9E61:DD1E:9FC (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. It sounds like she only took a single class as a non-degree-seeking student so including her as an alumna strikes me as so generous as to be misleading to readers. ElKevbo (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


@ElKevbo: What do you want to discuss? The text in the diff is relevant to the article and notable, so DUE. ImTheIP (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the entire history, funding, organization, and accomplishments of a What larger significance or lasting impact of a large, complex organization that is nearly 150 years old. So we have to be very selective about what we include in this article and how much space we devote to each topic. Why does this particular incident merit inclusion in this article? What overarching significance does it have to this organization and what lasting impact did it have? ElKevbo (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
It caused the Graduate Student Association to update its policies regarding the allocation of mandatory graduate student fees. ImTheIP (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
You have no sense of perspective. Go read some books on the history of American higher education. (Roger L. Geiger's work comes to mind.) Allocation of fees very rarely arises as an important long-term issue. If you think it should be more important, it's your problem to go raise hell in the pages of The Chronicle and other prestigious venues. Trying to use WP for that purpose violates WP:NOT (WP is not a soapbox). And if you don't know immediately which chronicle I'm talking about (it's not the SF Chronicle), then you are way out of your depth on this issue. (I specialized in the history of science as an undergraduate, which meant I had to read a lot of works on the history of American universities because so much of American science happens in universities.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Jesus. That angry comment wasn't really called for. ImTheIP (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is WP:UNDUE to dedicate so much real estate on the main UCLA page towards this issue when the primary subject appears to be GSA. If anything, it would better fit in a GSA article (if there is one). And some of the sources could be better. (Most of the first few links are primary sources and we're mainly looking for independent reporting.) However, I have to recognize that Coolcaesar's comments were out of line and I kindly request that they reconsider their language moving forward. Regards. — BriefEdits (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Milan Chatterjee is peripheral material to this article. The backstory is that I have been "renovating" the Brandeis Center article because it read like it was written by one of their employees. In that article there was a section about this poor fellow Chatterjee that you can read here. I thought the story smelled fishy so I researched it and rewrote it to make it more balanced. As in this diff. While doing that I realized that Chatterjee had very little to do with the Brandeis center. It just wrote press releases about him or something. His section was out of place. I looked around for a more relevant article and the only one I found was this one. But ElKevbo evicted the section which is now homeless again. A better home would be in an article about the GSA on UCLA, but idk if there is one. If I where to start one, it would probably be deleted and an article solely about the "Milan Chatterjee affair" wouldn't survive either. ImTheIP (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

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

This is why I oppose most article splits. When it comes to very complex subjects like the history of UCLA, 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) 16:22, 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) 16:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The status quo is unacceptable. The history section as it currently stands is an unbalanced, incoherent mess that is inappropriate for a university (or any article subject) of UCLA's stature and for which no one can spare the estimated six to eight hours it would take to clean it up and synchronize it to the current content of the article on the history of UCLA (which itself needs major cleanup). Several entire classes of undergraduates (i.e., many tens of thousands of students) have entered and graduated from UCLA in the years that this article has remained in its terribly incomplete state. If anyone had the time, energy, and interest, they would have done it long ago.
I suspect the main reason is that most people interested in editing Wikipedia are more interested in either making very minor incremental edits or gearing up for major revisions to articles about their most cherished interests. (For example, I made major revisions to the article on product liability earlier this year after thinking about them for over five years.) The other viable alternative is to merge the entire history article back into this article and then clean up that text. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Merging two articles of that size would just make readability much worse. I agree that the current History section has a very strong case of Wikipedia:Recentism. If we were to cut down on size, I'd recommend using University of California, Riverside (which is a Featured Article) as a template on what information to keep (and inversely what to migrate to the formal history article if it's not present there already). — BriefEdits (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

US Rankings[edit]

please update all University of California and California State University rankings. This years rankings are at the us ranking page.