Talk:University of California, Los Angeles/Archive 3

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

Reconsider renaming page to “UCLA”

I've read through the above discussion about renaming this page to “UCLA”, and I think it's time to reconsider the decision not to rename the page. The name of the school, as best I can tell, is formally “UCLA”. As evidence of this fact, I provide the following:

  1. The University of California website refers to the school as “UCLA” throughout, in contrast to every other UC school which is referred to by its full name (or as UC [city name]).
  2. The UCLA Trademarks & Licensing page, which, in apparently every instance, refers to the school as simply “UCLA”, or lists “UCLA” first when listing associated trademarks. This is also in contrast to other UC trademark sites, such as that of UCSB, which refers to the school primarily as “University of California, Santa Barbara” in trademark usage request documents, or that of UCSD, which explicitly says to refer to the school as “UC San Diego”, not “UCSD”.
  3. The UCLA seal, which refers to the school as “UCLA”. All other UC seals have the full name of the city in which they are located on them.
  4. A whois lookup for ucla.edu shows the registrant to be “UCLA”. All other UC schools have the full name of the university listed as the registrant.

As User:Dynaflow stated in the previous discussion: “As long as "UCLA" is simply an abbreviation for "the University of California, Los Angeles," the article title should stay pegged to the latter name. In other words, until the UC Regents strip the school of the name University of California, Los Angeles and officially make it UCLA (in the same way the Texas state legislature stripped Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University of its full name and made it Texas A&M (with the "A&M" literally not officially standing for anything), then the article title should stay how it is.” I believe that there is compelling evidence that this either has happened, or simply that “UCLA” has always been the formal name of the university. — Guido del Confuso (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

UCLA considers "UCLA" to be the proper name for the institution and is explicit in stating so. The official UCLA style guide [1] specifies "UCLA Not University of California, Los Angeles" and again, "University of California, Los Angeles Use UCLA." Helloelan (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose rename This is Wikipedia, and it is an encyclopedia. Separate from the deliberate branding rules of the organisation in question, if public understanding of the abbreviation UCLA is not clear and well understood, I think it is better that we stick to the full name for the article, but reword the first paragraph to show UCLA as the official name with the full name in brackets for example. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 06:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The public fully understands that the name of the university is “UCLA”. I have never head of it being called anything else. It's never referred to as “U.C. Los Angeles”, in the manner of “U.C. Berkeley” or “U.C. Irvine”. Not rarely—never.
This is not a branding issue, it is simply the correct name of the university. It is inaccurate to call it anything other that what it has always called itself and everyone has always referred to it as. Guido del Confuso (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose rename The archived discussion lists all the relevant arguments and none of these arguments have changed. There does not appear to be a good reason to reopen this discussion. I suggest that this discussion be closed. JeanLucMargot (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not at all true. In fact, what seems to me to be the primary reason not to change it has been shown to be invalid: “As long as "UCLA" is simply an abbreviation for "the University of California, Los Angeles," the article title should stay pegged to the latter name. In other words, until the UC Regents strip the school of the name University of California, Los Angeles and officially make it UCLA (in the same way the Texas state legislature stripped Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University of its full name and made it Texas A&M (with the "A&M" literally not officially standing for anything), then the article title should stay how it is.”
Given that the name of the school is not, and has never been, “University of California, Los Angeles”, this statement actually provides the perfect argument for changing it. There is simply no such school as “University of California, Los Angeles”. If you check the website UCLA.edu, that name never comes up. It is misinformation to state that the “official” name is anything other than UCLA. Guido del Confuso (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The University's "About" page (http://www.ucla.edu/about/mission-and-values) clearly refers to the official name. "The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is an institution that is firmly rooted in its land-grant mission of teaching, research and public service." JeanLucMargot (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
In direct violation of the University's style guide: http://brand.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/ucla-style-guide.pdf . So according to UCLA, that single page is incorrect, and should be changed to reflect the correct name—which would bring it in line with the hundreds of other mentions of the “UCLA” name throughout the website. Guido del Confuso (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The Style Guide is just that: a style guide, a set of standards for writing and marketing. UCLA continues to be officially and legally the University of California, Los Angeles. http://www.adminpolicies.ucla.edu/pdf/110.pdf The university simply chooses to use the abbreviation/nickname in the majority of its communications. (I'm not a regular Wikipedian, just a UCLA employee who stumbled across this odd claim.) 17 January 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.16.120 (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose rename as well. First, the official name is clearly the University of California, Los Angeles. UCLA is commonly used in informal contexts, but in formal written English, one would normally write out the full name before resorting to the common abbreviation. The last time I checked, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Simple English Wikipedia or the Valley Girl Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

birthplace of internet content

An IP editor supports inclusion of this content such as via this edit. Needs a WP:RS, less promotional language, and resolve WP:UNDUE presentation issues (not a full section, etc). UW Dawgs (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Concur. Plus the statement is not even accurate---UCLA and SRI are together the birthplace of the ARPANET, not the Internet. Confusing the ARPANET with the Internet implies no understanding of either concept. There are numerous Web sites which explain the difference. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science has similar defects in content and citations. I think the content on that article is appropriate and can be supported. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics, said so, "Birthplace of the Internet, 1969". SRI was given an "Inception of the ARPANET, 1969" commemorative plaque. The IEEE plaque at UCLA commemorating it as the birthplace of the internet Socalphoto (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. If there is a reliable source and the statement is written as supported, UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science seems the logical place for inclusion. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Nonsense, just jealous. Can't change history. Socalphoto (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Please review WP:CIVILITY. Also, I suggest reading some reliable sources on the subject. They're called books. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on University of California, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on University of California, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring over endowment

Can the unregistered editor(s) who is edit warring over the endowment figure in the infobox please (a) stop edit warring and (b) discuss his or her objections? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I still don't completely understand why the Regent's portion is excluded from the page--185.230.124.58 (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

UCLA Seal

Please use one of the official seals: http://brand.ucla.edu/identity/logos-and-marks/seals

The current seal being used is unofficial and modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.99.84 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Shakira attended UCLA in disguise as a boy in 2007

By this reason, should Shakira be added to the famous alumni list?

http://www.today.com/id/20768788/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/shakira-rests-hips-study-ucla/ https://www.nme.com/news/music/shakira-11-1317020 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shakira-brushes-up-her-history-150180 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/shakira-takes-history-class-at-ucla/ https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/entertainment/shakira-attended-university-in-disguise-430681.html https://ew.com/article/2007/09/14/what-shakiras-r/ 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)

DUE

@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

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

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

Recent History

It’s odd that the recent history section, which is near the top of the main article, focuses on negative incidents, as if by design to taint the UCLA’s reputation at the outset of it’s Wikipedia page. I’m not arguing opposition to the inclusion of some verifiable negative contemporary historical facts, but it should be balanced with examples of positive recent history, of which there are many more examples. 2601:8C0:4300:2810:CC1F:B467:71AB:C4DC (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that the Recent History of the main article is lacking -- there are key details in the History of UCLA article that would be good to include here for post-1950s info. Per the 2020 discussion above, I plan to clean up the formal History of UCLA article and then synchronize the main article (using the UCR Featured Article as a rough template on information to include). Twowrites (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_California,_Los_Angeles/Archive_3&oldid=1098062150"