Contents

Talk:University of California, Los Angeles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of California, Los Angeles article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 182 days

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

University of California Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This page is within the scope of the UC Los Angeles task force. New members are always welcome! Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles California: Los Angeles / Southern California High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	University 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 Date Process Result June 12, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 4, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship#Champions, runners-up and locations|record seven consecutive]] The anchor (#Champions, runners-up and locations) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. [[NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship#Champions, runners-up and locations|two]] The anchor (#Champions, runners-up and locations) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

An unregistered editor is insisting that the lede of this article include the following phrase: "...is frequently ranked among the best universities in the world by major college and university rankings.^[1]"

First, rankings from a single source in a single year cannot possibly substantiate a claim about being "frequently" ranked by "major college and university rankings." Something done once cannot be frequent and single ranking cannot be described as plural. Second, there is a a project-wide consensus about the inclusion of rankings and prestige in the lede of articles about colleges and universities and this single source comes nowhere close to meeting that consensus.

If an editor believes that this kind of information should be in the lede of this article, they are strongly encouraged to review WP:HIGHEREDREP and provide sources that meet that consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least sign up, wouldn't you think? 🤷‍♂️ – AndyFielding (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of UCLA's reputation in the lead section is appropriate pursuant to WP:HIGHEREDREP, which states that "only if a reputation is exceptionally good or bad or disputed is it such an important fact as to be noted in the lead section of an article." UC Berkeley's page mentions its ranking in the lead section, and as UCLA has tied with UC Berkeley as the number one public institution in the US for years, it therefore has an "exceptionally good" reputation worth noting in the lead section. This is supported by the US News and Times Higher Education rankings provided. It is not the case that UCLA's number one ranking has only maintained for a single year. It has been at number one for six years. Other sources can be cited at the end of the claim to substantiate UCLA's reputation, which is by any serious metric, "exceptionally good" (refer to WP:HIGHEREDREP). Geogrk (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a brief statement in the lede that complies with WP:HIGHEREDREP by citing the kinds of high quality sources that are necessary to support that kind of statement in the article's lede. In particular, citing a handful of rankings that you personally select to support a broad, sweeping claim is not acceptable; if you think the article needs a broad statement in the lede, you need to provide strong sources that explicitly support the claim. The sources used in the Berkeley article and discussed in that article's Talk page can provide some really good guidance. ElKevbo (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I will attempt this later. Thank you. Geogrk (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This section is unusual for an article about big universities. The contents of the Greek part are unreferenced and since it is just a rote list of various fraternities and sororities without any further detail, I question whether there is any useful information being shared here. The school traditions seem really anecdotal and most of them are unsourced. I propose deletion. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one chimed in on this one, I will go ahead and streamline. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I mean, rah! – AndyFielding (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sub-sections in the 'History' section about scandals. In other university pages, there's a separate section for university related scandals. So I propose to create a separate section called 'Scandals' and transfer the scandal related contents in that section, instead of putting them in the 'History' section. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good suggestion. Thank you for the initiative. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. In general, many Wikipedia editors do not believe that "controversy" sections in articles are appropriate. Our advice for college and university articles recommends that we "place controversies and other events into their proper historical context." That advice also recommends that this kind of information be placed into the "History" section. It's just usually bad practice to divorce controversies from broader context that readers needs to understand them. ElKevbo (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd… In WP's bios, you see controversies split off into their own sections all the time. Maybe there isn't as much of a tabloid effect with institutions. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]