![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
I attempted to add a link to old yearbooks published by UC Berkeley ( http://www.e-yearbook.com/cal ) and it was removed by an editor with a reason given as link spam. I disagree in that these yearbooks are an important resource highly relevant to the topic of UC Berkeley. They have been published by the ASUC since 1875 and in many ways represent the institutional memory of the school. While this is a commerical site that generates revenue, a significant % of the revenue goes to the ASUC. Also, there are other commercial sites on this page (like the link to the Oski mascot site).
It just seems to me that this would more than qualify as a valid link in the "Other" external links section. In fact, I'm going to suggest that the Info_box template for Universities adds an entry for "yearbook".
BTW - I emailed both the editors that removed my edits and neither of them have responded to me... thanks, bryan
PS> I originally submitted this on the UC discussion page but wanted to post it here specifically to UC Berkeley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.39.140 ( talk)
(From UCLA) I'm not sure what the conclusion of this discussion is. While certainly the yearbook is a significant component of Student and University life, it would have less impact in a university that does not have an equally qualified media publication team. I don't have a major qualm with the link in EL, but it just doesn't seem to apply to the whole university on the same level that the staple links (Athletics, Library, Alumni Association, etc.) do. ALTON .ıl 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's not abundantly clear, this issue has resurfaced. I oppose the inclusion of this link in External links or any other section because the webpage requires registration. The MOS is explicit that such links should not be present unless the webpage in question is the subject of the article. Further, the manner in which the links have been added to multiple articles in the face of opposition with little discussion is very similar to the numerous cases of links added to articles primarily to promote websites that are classified as "link spam" and removed.
I'm more than happy to relent if there is a consensus to ignore the MOS in this case but there should be a very clear consensus to do so. -- ElKevbo 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I just uploaded some of my own photographs under free licenses for use in this article (and elsewhere). If I don't get around to including/replacing old images with these anyone else is welcome to. They are extremely high resolution and high quality. Trisweb 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I realize that sub-titling the history section is probably very non-standard, but it was unreadable without being split up. Either shorten the section and remove the titles, or keep it at its current length with subtitles as I've done. Please don't go back to the solid block of text at its current length.
I vote shortening it without titles for consistency with other articles. Other sections are similarly wordy and need to be shortened. I'll get around to it someday...
Trisweb 10:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way we can include a description of CalTV, Berkeley's new online TV station? We've been around since Fall 05 and have been gaining popularity on campus. We're funded by the ASUC too. Check out our site at caltv.berkeley.edu [1] or find us on iTunes Music Store (under podcasts).
Anirudhv 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Why are the 'edit' buttons for the UCB page gone? Has someone decided that normal users can no longer contribute? Not in the spirit of this wiki if you ask me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.25.104.111 ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 March 2007.
Can someone change the missspelling? Berkely appears in various back-linked pages. Nobody calls it Stanfurd, either... :) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.116.253.227 (
talk)
06:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed on the NCAA National Championships table, there are sports included like Rugby and Lacrosse which are NOT NCAA, yet they are counted as NCAA National Championships at the bottom. So I think it should either be changed to ALL Athletic National Championships, or those non-NCAA sports should be removed.
70.121.107.180 02:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm concerned about an by Arcimpulse on 11 February 2007, which completely changed the nature of the lead section. I much prefer the old paragraph summarizing accomplishments by UC Berkeley's faculty in the sciences:
"Berkeley physicists played a key role in developing the atomic bomb during WWII and the hydrogen bomb soon afterwards. The University has managed the nation's two principal nuclear weapons labs (now also used for more peaceful research) at Livermore and Los Alamos ever since. Berkeley scientists invented the cyclotron, discovered the anti-proton, played a key role in developing the laser, explained the processes underlying photosynthesis, isolated the polio virus, designed experiments that confirmed Bell's Theorem, and discovered numerous elements, including Seaborgium, Plutonium, Berkelium, Lawrencium and Californium. Berkeley computer scientists are also credited with creating BSD. But Berkeley faculty have a no less distinguished record in fields outside the sciences as well, including four Fields Medal winners in mathematics, and nine recipients of the prestigious James S. McDonnell Foundation award."
I think this paragraph does an excellent job of impressing upon the reader right away the character of UC Berkeley as a tier-one research university -- quite appropriate for the lead section -- without compromising NPOV at all (after all, it's just a list of things which are true). Indeed it was in full agreement with the wiki Lead Section Guidelines, which makes it confusing to me why it was ever changed in the first place. This paragraph's cousin in the current article, which originated from Arcimpulse's edit on 2/11, reads very poorly in my opinion and doesn't fulfill its purpose nearly as well as its predecessor. I mean no disrespect at all to Arcimpulse, who has made many useful and needed edits.
I propose we reinstate this paragraph, and add to it some of the numerous accomplishments of the humanities faculty, like the Pulitzer Prize winners mentioned currently. I wanted to bring this up in discussion before changing it myself, which I intend to do if your feedback is favorable.
Theytsejam 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a start, but I think it still doesn't read well. One of my problems with it is the part "...discoveries made by Berkeley investigators include: ..." The colon and the following list are extraordinarily tacky and sound like something you'd find in a VCR manual telling you what's included in the box. Also, I think the research accomplishments of the faculty deserve their own paragraph apart from information about the founding of the university, and it seems like Sproul's and Wheeler's names are artificially inserted in there. Not to downplay your contribution, but I still fail to see how "balance" was lacking in the original paragraph, or indeed why the original lead section deserved such a massive overhaul, since it seems like you just rearranged and reworded most of it. I would like to revert the structure of the lead section back to the way it was on Feb 24 before you edited it, while keeping your contributions as additions. I will do this when I get around to it. 136.152.146.104 02:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The goal of getting a good lead history section is an admirable one, and I have spent time puzzling over it (and occasionally making edits), too. However, I'm beginning to think it may be a counterproductive (and perhaps impossible) task, mainly because the accomplishments of the university's faculty, researchers and students (not to mention alumni) are truly immense in scope. That makes lists--no matter how well done--seem inadequate at best, and embarrassing at worst [see the comment below by a faculty member (?) about work in computer science & EE and how it differs from the Wikipedia material]. Berkeley isn't just another Tier One American research university--rather, for a very long time it has had pre-eminent R & D in virtually every field of knowledge, and has been one of a *very* small handful of universities in the Americas, Europe, Asia & Africa that shaped and led the academic world. That reality can't be captured in a list, and humility forbids all but the most unabashed boosters from saying it in print. Am I mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.65.76.106 ( talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Contributions to computer science section is a bit of an embarrassment. I'm a staff person in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department, and I find the list of of projects to be very unrepresentative of what's happening at Berkeley. At best, perhaps some of these projects could go to UC_Berkeley_College_of_Engineering. In the short term, I propose that the list of projects be removed. In the longer term, perhaps the Contributions to computer science section should go to UC_Berkeley_College_of_Engineering? (I'm not sure about this). Comments? Cxbrx 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I ended up on this discussion page because I saw the Contributions to computer science section, and, like Cxbrx, thought it was kind of ridiculous. Sounds like Cxbrx deleted it, but then someone else put it back. I'm going to delete it again. The length of the section is wildly out of proportion to its importance and relevance to the article.-- 76.167.77.165 ( talk) 05:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Jay Gatsby and I ( Ed Hubbard) have been having a sort of slow-motion debate via revert on whether to simply list the school colors as "Blue and Gold" or "Yale Blue and California Gold". I'd like to try and move this debate here to the talk page, so that other people can weigh in, and perhaps Jay can explain in more detail than possible in an edit summary box his rationale for preferring the simpler "Blue and Gold."
So, now the question is, why does Jay want to insist on less specific, less official information? Does he feel that choosing "Yale Gold" is somehow beneath Berkeley? Does he feel that blue is blue, and it doesn't matter what shade? If that were so, then what about other schools with nominally the same colors? I note, too, that every time he changed it in the box, he left it as "Yale Blue and California Gold" in the text. Perhaps Jay feels that it just looks cluttered to have that much text in the small box? Jay, let's not continue a revert war. What is your motivation here? Edhubbard 12:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to start a section called either criticism of UC Berkeley or controversies, and begin with the third part of Grey Brechin's book Imperial San Francisco and include nuclear weapons, biotechnology, the Memorial staduim issues etc. someone deleted my first shot at it and I recognize it was too opinionated. is there any way you defenders of this page could stop arguing about colors and discuss the need for a section on controversies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.97.68 ( talk)
what should we name it? Criticisms? Controversies?
67.101.97.68
00:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. you should stop hiding behind aliases. My name is Hank Chapot, I am a UC Gardener, Central campus 67.101.97.68 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a discussion thread for the revert war over the Berkeley seal in the infobox. Please discuss; we'll form a consensus or vote and then change the seal. Personally I prefer the more vibrant yellow seal, regardless of the Pantone conversion from the original EPS. The official site that was taken from also (I believe) contains the official RGB colors to be used, so let's use those right? Also, the blue and white seal is atrocious. Please discuss further and we'll decide... ~ trisweb ( Talk) 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that DiCaprio's character in Catch Me If You Can pretends to have a law degree from Harvard, not Berkeley. I distinctly remember the degree says "Universitas Harvardiana." Am I wrong? Wercloud 17:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
-wasn't that his degree from med school from Harvard and law school from berkeley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.117.231 ( talk) 22:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
edit: Frank's doctorate degree says "Universitas Harvardiana". But shortly after it shows his degree on the wall he is eating dinner with Brenda and her family he states (pretends) that he got his law degree from Berkeley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.179.125 ( talk) 02:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
--You might want to watch the film again: The De Caprio character (Frank Abegnale) says he went to law school at Berkeley, which turns out to be the alma mater of the Martin Sheen character, his prospective father-in-law. The Sheen character then quizzes De Caprio (Abegnale) about a teacher he had in law school at Berkeley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.162.217 ( talk) 14:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget The Graduate, which has the Ali McGraw character as a student at Cal. DOR (HK) ( talk) 01:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with the majority here as a Berkeley alumni that "UC Berkeley" or "University of California, Berkeley" refers to our campus in academics, whereas "Cal" is what we referred to as our sports programs.
I'd like to propose a deletion of the 3rd paragraph under the "Names" section. The paragraph discussing our campus' designation of athletics as "Cal" vs. academics as "Berkeley" seems somewhat fuzzy. The term "mild sniping" sounds rather POV. To make that point, the first sentence refers to some chancellor at CSU Chico making some random general statement.
In addition, the insertion that "some charge" that Berkeley "depreciates" the sports programs for other schools is vaguely supported by some random editorial at UCLA's Daily Bruin newspaper (which by the way, is no longer accessible). The general assertion that this paragraph attempts to prove is not supported by any evidence and adopts a somewhat partisan tone (perhaps a non-UC Berkeley supporter)? I don't think that a random student paper reporter's editorial at UCLA's paper should constitute the definitive authority that we should rely upon to solidly demonstrate that this assertion is widely recognized by the public, if at all.
In any case, the language and the references in that paragraph do not support the general inclusion in this article. Does anyone have objections or comments--if not, I'll assume it's fine and delete the paragraph and broken links. Azntokki 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki
Amerique: can you refactor and link the 3rd paragraph? I see that you undid my deletion of the article--I don't quite understand why you reverted my edit, if you agreed with my reasoning. Please explain or edit accordingly. Thanks. Azntokki 03:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki
The "External links" section is way out of hand and desperately needs to be trimmed. In particular, please note that Wikipedia is not a directory of links. -- ElKevbo 18:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI - I got the message on my talk that a bot has deleted the Cal logos due to copyright issues (rightfully so? I'm not sure). In any case, is there a way we can use a version of the logo under fair use, or do we just leave it out? I have removed it from the infobox for now. trisweb ( Talk) 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this article needs significant reorganization and rewriting... it's POV in many ways (as to which subjects are covered) and not well organized. I'm not up to the whole task, but will help as much as I can. Let's discuss the issues and the best way to proceed. trisweb ( Talk) 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Several editors are organizing a WikiProject to better organize articles related to the University of California. A preliminary draft is available here. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:University of California#Developing Wikiproject University of California. szyslak 21:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your edit-war and I doubt that you are ever going to be able to keep this list posted on the University of California, Berkeley page. I have been a graduate student at Berkeley for 5 years now and I have never heard of these people, despite the fact that I am on campus all the time.
I am assuming that you are just listing the random crazy people who yell about things near Sproul Hall and Sather Gate etc. You have to understand that crazy people are a phenomenon at almost all universities to some extent - because a few students will actually stop and listen - thus giving the crazy person the attention he or she desires. The fact that you want to add these people to the article shows that you personally find these types of people fascinating - and that's okay - but I personally don't know of anyone who knows these people by name (or who stops to listen to them for that matter).
One article in the Daily Californian or the Berkeley Daily Planet is also not enough to claim "notability". There are full professors, widely published etc. at Berkeley who do not have their own Wikipedia entries, and yet their work impacts and influences people around the world - two professors I can think of off-hand are Anne Middleton Wagner and Thomas Laqueur. Both of these professors are brilliant scholars who have changed the face of their respective fields (art history and history) in profound ways. To think that someone like a local "Carrot Top" who caught your attention while on your way to class is notable enough to include in an article about a 140-year-old esteemed intitution is just wrong. I hope you can understand why this is the case. Saudade7 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As a Cal alum and former employee at Berkeley's UARS, we routinely refer to Berkeley as the University of California's "flagship" campus. This merely connotes the fact that Berkeley was the first, oldest and founding campus of the UC system. This fact is widely recognized by academicians, staff, alumni and by every UC systemwide present since UC started. A Google search typing in "UC Berkeley" and "flagship" will support this fact. I've added this language to this page, but some individuals without explanation continue deleting this language upon every edit. What do most people think--should we retain "flagship" language to describe Berkeley's origin and status in the UC system? I think it's informative and a verifiable fact, but the two individuals who keep reverting any mention of this fact have given no explanation as to why they do so. Any thoughts? Aznusmcmarine ( talk) 03:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine
I feel strongly that "flagship" status is a simple matter of fact and should be stated as such. The flagship campus of a state university system is the oldest, the one from which the rest of the system grew. It's much like calling William and Mary a "colonial college," or Yale an "Ivy League school." These are objective facts, even though they are facts that are often felt to convey prestige.
Often, we are talking about a qualitative difference, not just a few years Princeton-versus-Penn-type difference. Often the flagship campus will have been established during the huge wave of university foundings in the decades following the Civil War, while the other campuses of the university system are, perhaps, former state teachers' colleges or mining-and-agriculture schools that got upgraded, perhaps in the 1950s or more recently.
Often the flagship school will not only be much older, but also much larger and much better funded than the others. It will have an aura of superiority.
In recent years schools that are not flagship schools have become envious of that aura, and in some cases have even asked the state legislature to confer the word "flagship" on them, so, yes, the word now has a sort of dual meaning: a factual meaning and a vacuous peacock meaning. This peacock meaning is very new, by the way. It completely took me by surprise. I'd like to see some references bearing on whether the meaning of the word has now really changed, so that "flagship" just means "good."
I'm not researching this now, but for purposes of argument let's assume that 1) Berkeley is the original and oldest campus of the University of California system, and thus is "the" flagship campus in the formerly accepted meaning of the word; 2) the State of California has officially designated multiple campuses of the system as all being "flagship campuse." In Lake Wobegon all the children are above average; in California, it seems, all universities are the oldest. I suppose what they hope to imply is "we love them too and will in future fund them just as generously."
If these assumptions are correct, then we shouldn't call Berkeley "the" flagship campus, but should use some kind of neutral language like "Berkeley is the oldest of a number of campuses which, in year so-and-so, were officially designated by California as 'flagship campuses.'" Dpbsmith (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a Berkeley alum, but I generally refer to Berkeley and UCLA together as the flagship campuses of the system. I agree that it's basically a peacock term. UC Berkeley has many objective claims to fame. It doesn't need to puff itself up artificially with words like "flagship."-- 76.167.77.165 ( talk) 05:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
I attempted to add a link to old yearbooks published by UC Berkeley ( http://www.e-yearbook.com/cal ) and it was removed by an editor with a reason given as link spam. I disagree in that these yearbooks are an important resource highly relevant to the topic of UC Berkeley. They have been published by the ASUC since 1875 and in many ways represent the institutional memory of the school. While this is a commerical site that generates revenue, a significant % of the revenue goes to the ASUC. Also, there are other commercial sites on this page (like the link to the Oski mascot site).
It just seems to me that this would more than qualify as a valid link in the "Other" external links section. In fact, I'm going to suggest that the Info_box template for Universities adds an entry for "yearbook".
BTW - I emailed both the editors that removed my edits and neither of them have responded to me... thanks, bryan
PS> I originally submitted this on the UC discussion page but wanted to post it here specifically to UC Berkeley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.39.140 ( talk)
(From UCLA) I'm not sure what the conclusion of this discussion is. While certainly the yearbook is a significant component of Student and University life, it would have less impact in a university that does not have an equally qualified media publication team. I don't have a major qualm with the link in EL, but it just doesn't seem to apply to the whole university on the same level that the staple links (Athletics, Library, Alumni Association, etc.) do. ALTON .ıl 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's not abundantly clear, this issue has resurfaced. I oppose the inclusion of this link in External links or any other section because the webpage requires registration. The MOS is explicit that such links should not be present unless the webpage in question is the subject of the article. Further, the manner in which the links have been added to multiple articles in the face of opposition with little discussion is very similar to the numerous cases of links added to articles primarily to promote websites that are classified as "link spam" and removed.
I'm more than happy to relent if there is a consensus to ignore the MOS in this case but there should be a very clear consensus to do so. -- ElKevbo 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I just uploaded some of my own photographs under free licenses for use in this article (and elsewhere). If I don't get around to including/replacing old images with these anyone else is welcome to. They are extremely high resolution and high quality. Trisweb 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I realize that sub-titling the history section is probably very non-standard, but it was unreadable without being split up. Either shorten the section and remove the titles, or keep it at its current length with subtitles as I've done. Please don't go back to the solid block of text at its current length.
I vote shortening it without titles for consistency with other articles. Other sections are similarly wordy and need to be shortened. I'll get around to it someday...
Trisweb 10:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way we can include a description of CalTV, Berkeley's new online TV station? We've been around since Fall 05 and have been gaining popularity on campus. We're funded by the ASUC too. Check out our site at caltv.berkeley.edu [1] or find us on iTunes Music Store (under podcasts).
Anirudhv 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Why are the 'edit' buttons for the UCB page gone? Has someone decided that normal users can no longer contribute? Not in the spirit of this wiki if you ask me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.25.104.111 ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 March 2007.
Can someone change the missspelling? Berkely appears in various back-linked pages. Nobody calls it Stanfurd, either... :) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.116.253.227 (
talk)
06:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed on the NCAA National Championships table, there are sports included like Rugby and Lacrosse which are NOT NCAA, yet they are counted as NCAA National Championships at the bottom. So I think it should either be changed to ALL Athletic National Championships, or those non-NCAA sports should be removed.
70.121.107.180 02:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm concerned about an by Arcimpulse on 11 February 2007, which completely changed the nature of the lead section. I much prefer the old paragraph summarizing accomplishments by UC Berkeley's faculty in the sciences:
"Berkeley physicists played a key role in developing the atomic bomb during WWII and the hydrogen bomb soon afterwards. The University has managed the nation's two principal nuclear weapons labs (now also used for more peaceful research) at Livermore and Los Alamos ever since. Berkeley scientists invented the cyclotron, discovered the anti-proton, played a key role in developing the laser, explained the processes underlying photosynthesis, isolated the polio virus, designed experiments that confirmed Bell's Theorem, and discovered numerous elements, including Seaborgium, Plutonium, Berkelium, Lawrencium and Californium. Berkeley computer scientists are also credited with creating BSD. But Berkeley faculty have a no less distinguished record in fields outside the sciences as well, including four Fields Medal winners in mathematics, and nine recipients of the prestigious James S. McDonnell Foundation award."
I think this paragraph does an excellent job of impressing upon the reader right away the character of UC Berkeley as a tier-one research university -- quite appropriate for the lead section -- without compromising NPOV at all (after all, it's just a list of things which are true). Indeed it was in full agreement with the wiki Lead Section Guidelines, which makes it confusing to me why it was ever changed in the first place. This paragraph's cousin in the current article, which originated from Arcimpulse's edit on 2/11, reads very poorly in my opinion and doesn't fulfill its purpose nearly as well as its predecessor. I mean no disrespect at all to Arcimpulse, who has made many useful and needed edits.
I propose we reinstate this paragraph, and add to it some of the numerous accomplishments of the humanities faculty, like the Pulitzer Prize winners mentioned currently. I wanted to bring this up in discussion before changing it myself, which I intend to do if your feedback is favorable.
Theytsejam 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a start, but I think it still doesn't read well. One of my problems with it is the part "...discoveries made by Berkeley investigators include: ..." The colon and the following list are extraordinarily tacky and sound like something you'd find in a VCR manual telling you what's included in the box. Also, I think the research accomplishments of the faculty deserve their own paragraph apart from information about the founding of the university, and it seems like Sproul's and Wheeler's names are artificially inserted in there. Not to downplay your contribution, but I still fail to see how "balance" was lacking in the original paragraph, or indeed why the original lead section deserved such a massive overhaul, since it seems like you just rearranged and reworded most of it. I would like to revert the structure of the lead section back to the way it was on Feb 24 before you edited it, while keeping your contributions as additions. I will do this when I get around to it. 136.152.146.104 02:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The goal of getting a good lead history section is an admirable one, and I have spent time puzzling over it (and occasionally making edits), too. However, I'm beginning to think it may be a counterproductive (and perhaps impossible) task, mainly because the accomplishments of the university's faculty, researchers and students (not to mention alumni) are truly immense in scope. That makes lists--no matter how well done--seem inadequate at best, and embarrassing at worst [see the comment below by a faculty member (?) about work in computer science & EE and how it differs from the Wikipedia material]. Berkeley isn't just another Tier One American research university--rather, for a very long time it has had pre-eminent R & D in virtually every field of knowledge, and has been one of a *very* small handful of universities in the Americas, Europe, Asia & Africa that shaped and led the academic world. That reality can't be captured in a list, and humility forbids all but the most unabashed boosters from saying it in print. Am I mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.65.76.106 ( talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Contributions to computer science section is a bit of an embarrassment. I'm a staff person in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department, and I find the list of of projects to be very unrepresentative of what's happening at Berkeley. At best, perhaps some of these projects could go to UC_Berkeley_College_of_Engineering. In the short term, I propose that the list of projects be removed. In the longer term, perhaps the Contributions to computer science section should go to UC_Berkeley_College_of_Engineering? (I'm not sure about this). Comments? Cxbrx 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I ended up on this discussion page because I saw the Contributions to computer science section, and, like Cxbrx, thought it was kind of ridiculous. Sounds like Cxbrx deleted it, but then someone else put it back. I'm going to delete it again. The length of the section is wildly out of proportion to its importance and relevance to the article.-- 76.167.77.165 ( talk) 05:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Jay Gatsby and I ( Ed Hubbard) have been having a sort of slow-motion debate via revert on whether to simply list the school colors as "Blue and Gold" or "Yale Blue and California Gold". I'd like to try and move this debate here to the talk page, so that other people can weigh in, and perhaps Jay can explain in more detail than possible in an edit summary box his rationale for preferring the simpler "Blue and Gold."
So, now the question is, why does Jay want to insist on less specific, less official information? Does he feel that choosing "Yale Gold" is somehow beneath Berkeley? Does he feel that blue is blue, and it doesn't matter what shade? If that were so, then what about other schools with nominally the same colors? I note, too, that every time he changed it in the box, he left it as "Yale Blue and California Gold" in the text. Perhaps Jay feels that it just looks cluttered to have that much text in the small box? Jay, let's not continue a revert war. What is your motivation here? Edhubbard 12:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to start a section called either criticism of UC Berkeley or controversies, and begin with the third part of Grey Brechin's book Imperial San Francisco and include nuclear weapons, biotechnology, the Memorial staduim issues etc. someone deleted my first shot at it and I recognize it was too opinionated. is there any way you defenders of this page could stop arguing about colors and discuss the need for a section on controversies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.97.68 ( talk)
what should we name it? Criticisms? Controversies?
67.101.97.68
00:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. you should stop hiding behind aliases. My name is Hank Chapot, I am a UC Gardener, Central campus 67.101.97.68 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a discussion thread for the revert war over the Berkeley seal in the infobox. Please discuss; we'll form a consensus or vote and then change the seal. Personally I prefer the more vibrant yellow seal, regardless of the Pantone conversion from the original EPS. The official site that was taken from also (I believe) contains the official RGB colors to be used, so let's use those right? Also, the blue and white seal is atrocious. Please discuss further and we'll decide... ~ trisweb ( Talk) 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that DiCaprio's character in Catch Me If You Can pretends to have a law degree from Harvard, not Berkeley. I distinctly remember the degree says "Universitas Harvardiana." Am I wrong? Wercloud 17:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
-wasn't that his degree from med school from Harvard and law school from berkeley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.117.231 ( talk) 22:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
edit: Frank's doctorate degree says "Universitas Harvardiana". But shortly after it shows his degree on the wall he is eating dinner with Brenda and her family he states (pretends) that he got his law degree from Berkeley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.179.125 ( talk) 02:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
--You might want to watch the film again: The De Caprio character (Frank Abegnale) says he went to law school at Berkeley, which turns out to be the alma mater of the Martin Sheen character, his prospective father-in-law. The Sheen character then quizzes De Caprio (Abegnale) about a teacher he had in law school at Berkeley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.162.217 ( talk) 14:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget The Graduate, which has the Ali McGraw character as a student at Cal. DOR (HK) ( talk) 01:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with the majority here as a Berkeley alumni that "UC Berkeley" or "University of California, Berkeley" refers to our campus in academics, whereas "Cal" is what we referred to as our sports programs.
I'd like to propose a deletion of the 3rd paragraph under the "Names" section. The paragraph discussing our campus' designation of athletics as "Cal" vs. academics as "Berkeley" seems somewhat fuzzy. The term "mild sniping" sounds rather POV. To make that point, the first sentence refers to some chancellor at CSU Chico making some random general statement.
In addition, the insertion that "some charge" that Berkeley "depreciates" the sports programs for other schools is vaguely supported by some random editorial at UCLA's Daily Bruin newspaper (which by the way, is no longer accessible). The general assertion that this paragraph attempts to prove is not supported by any evidence and adopts a somewhat partisan tone (perhaps a non-UC Berkeley supporter)? I don't think that a random student paper reporter's editorial at UCLA's paper should constitute the definitive authority that we should rely upon to solidly demonstrate that this assertion is widely recognized by the public, if at all.
In any case, the language and the references in that paragraph do not support the general inclusion in this article. Does anyone have objections or comments--if not, I'll assume it's fine and delete the paragraph and broken links. Azntokki 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki
Amerique: can you refactor and link the 3rd paragraph? I see that you undid my deletion of the article--I don't quite understand why you reverted my edit, if you agreed with my reasoning. Please explain or edit accordingly. Thanks. Azntokki 03:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki
The "External links" section is way out of hand and desperately needs to be trimmed. In particular, please note that Wikipedia is not a directory of links. -- ElKevbo 18:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI - I got the message on my talk that a bot has deleted the Cal logos due to copyright issues (rightfully so? I'm not sure). In any case, is there a way we can use a version of the logo under fair use, or do we just leave it out? I have removed it from the infobox for now. trisweb ( Talk) 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this article needs significant reorganization and rewriting... it's POV in many ways (as to which subjects are covered) and not well organized. I'm not up to the whole task, but will help as much as I can. Let's discuss the issues and the best way to proceed. trisweb ( Talk) 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Several editors are organizing a WikiProject to better organize articles related to the University of California. A preliminary draft is available here. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:University of California#Developing Wikiproject University of California. szyslak 21:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your edit-war and I doubt that you are ever going to be able to keep this list posted on the University of California, Berkeley page. I have been a graduate student at Berkeley for 5 years now and I have never heard of these people, despite the fact that I am on campus all the time.
I am assuming that you are just listing the random crazy people who yell about things near Sproul Hall and Sather Gate etc. You have to understand that crazy people are a phenomenon at almost all universities to some extent - because a few students will actually stop and listen - thus giving the crazy person the attention he or she desires. The fact that you want to add these people to the article shows that you personally find these types of people fascinating - and that's okay - but I personally don't know of anyone who knows these people by name (or who stops to listen to them for that matter).
One article in the Daily Californian or the Berkeley Daily Planet is also not enough to claim "notability". There are full professors, widely published etc. at Berkeley who do not have their own Wikipedia entries, and yet their work impacts and influences people around the world - two professors I can think of off-hand are Anne Middleton Wagner and Thomas Laqueur. Both of these professors are brilliant scholars who have changed the face of their respective fields (art history and history) in profound ways. To think that someone like a local "Carrot Top" who caught your attention while on your way to class is notable enough to include in an article about a 140-year-old esteemed intitution is just wrong. I hope you can understand why this is the case. Saudade7 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As a Cal alum and former employee at Berkeley's UARS, we routinely refer to Berkeley as the University of California's "flagship" campus. This merely connotes the fact that Berkeley was the first, oldest and founding campus of the UC system. This fact is widely recognized by academicians, staff, alumni and by every UC systemwide present since UC started. A Google search typing in "UC Berkeley" and "flagship" will support this fact. I've added this language to this page, but some individuals without explanation continue deleting this language upon every edit. What do most people think--should we retain "flagship" language to describe Berkeley's origin and status in the UC system? I think it's informative and a verifiable fact, but the two individuals who keep reverting any mention of this fact have given no explanation as to why they do so. Any thoughts? Aznusmcmarine ( talk) 03:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine
I feel strongly that "flagship" status is a simple matter of fact and should be stated as such. The flagship campus of a state university system is the oldest, the one from which the rest of the system grew. It's much like calling William and Mary a "colonial college," or Yale an "Ivy League school." These are objective facts, even though they are facts that are often felt to convey prestige.
Often, we are talking about a qualitative difference, not just a few years Princeton-versus-Penn-type difference. Often the flagship campus will have been established during the huge wave of university foundings in the decades following the Civil War, while the other campuses of the university system are, perhaps, former state teachers' colleges or mining-and-agriculture schools that got upgraded, perhaps in the 1950s or more recently.
Often the flagship school will not only be much older, but also much larger and much better funded than the others. It will have an aura of superiority.
In recent years schools that are not flagship schools have become envious of that aura, and in some cases have even asked the state legislature to confer the word "flagship" on them, so, yes, the word now has a sort of dual meaning: a factual meaning and a vacuous peacock meaning. This peacock meaning is very new, by the way. It completely took me by surprise. I'd like to see some references bearing on whether the meaning of the word has now really changed, so that "flagship" just means "good."
I'm not researching this now, but for purposes of argument let's assume that 1) Berkeley is the original and oldest campus of the University of California system, and thus is "the" flagship campus in the formerly accepted meaning of the word; 2) the State of California has officially designated multiple campuses of the system as all being "flagship campuse." In Lake Wobegon all the children are above average; in California, it seems, all universities are the oldest. I suppose what they hope to imply is "we love them too and will in future fund them just as generously."
If these assumptions are correct, then we shouldn't call Berkeley "the" flagship campus, but should use some kind of neutral language like "Berkeley is the oldest of a number of campuses which, in year so-and-so, were officially designated by California as 'flagship campuses.'" Dpbsmith (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a Berkeley alum, but I generally refer to Berkeley and UCLA together as the flagship campuses of the system. I agree that it's basically a peacock term. UC Berkeley has many objective claims to fame. It doesn't need to puff itself up artificially with words like "flagship."-- 76.167.77.165 ( talk) 05:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)