Talk:University of California, Los Angeles

Ranking information in the lede

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."

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)

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

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)

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)

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

References

Court ruling

Associated Press just reported the following:

"A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the University of California, Los Angeles, cannot allow pro-Palestinian protesters to block Jewish students from accessing classes and other parts of campus."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ucla-cant-allow-protesters-block-014458314.html

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Great. This isn't a news ticker, I don't see any reason to mention it here, and am inclined to revert Special:Diff/1239965781. 2024 University of California, Los Angeles pro-Palestinian campus occupation would be the relevant place for it. Walsh90210 (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -Recent history

The "Recent history" section seems to have experienced some tendentious editing. The paragraphs about Israel-Palestine protests contain some claims not supported by their citations and some potentially misleading claims.

The current section claims that the encampment "was viewed as a “Jew Exclusion Zone” by many students on campus." Howver, the LA Times article it cites only states that 3 students called the encampment a "Jew Exclusion Zone" in a legal complaint against the school.

The section states as fact that "UCLA did not prevent the misuse of their resources that were used to deny Jewish students access to Royce Quad, a central part of UCLA's campus." However, the citation only supports that an attorney for students suing UCLA made that claim. The section also neglects to mention that in April, UCLA said the encampment was unlawful and threatened participants with suspension or expulsion. (https://dailybruin.com/2024/04/30/ucla-declares-encampment-unlawful-states-potential-consequences-for-participants) In May, UCLA shut down the encampment, and the UC system has since implemented policies banning encampments and face masks used to conceal identity. (https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ucla-campus-trashed-after-police-dismantle-encampment/; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/19/university-california-gaza-protests-encampment-face-mask-bans) These facts are not included in the section either.

Meanwhile, the section devotes one sentence to the April 30 attack by counter-protesters on the encampment. "On May 1, violent clashes were reported on the UCLA campus between pro-Palestinian protesters and groups of counter-demonstrators supporting Israel." This description casts doubt on whether the incidents occurred, is unclear about whether the clashes were isolated or coordinated, and does not clarify that the counter-demonstrators were the aggressors on that night. This last claim is supported by an article the section currently cites: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-07-29/ucla-lawsuit-jewish-students-encampments. ("A violent mob attacked [the encampment] on April 30 amid delayed law enforcement intervention.")

This section should be reviewed and imo deleted.

P.S.: The section claims that "the anti-Israel protestors did not allow students who refused to denounce Israel onto UCLA campus grounds", but this is unsupported by the article it cites. However, this article (https://archive.is/iBDR2) supports that claim. 216.165.95.128 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2024

University of California, Los Angeles → UCLA – WP:COMMONNAME. Theparties (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The full name provides a WP:TITLECON consistent naming convention across all articles on universities and colleges in the United States. Many reliable sources like Forbes and US News and World Report still use the full name. The OP has also made numerous individual RMs on this same issue like this one, which may violate WP:ACROTITLE or use a shorter common name that is rarely used outside a sports/athletic context. Better to stick to the status quo. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary, unwise, and confusing for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the comments of Zzyzx11. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 15:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons articulated above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Consistent with the MOS:ACROTITLE exception:

  in contrast, consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications

  The full title is oft used, and is suitable for its main page.—Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)