Talk:History of the University of California, Los Angeles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ideas for further development[edit]

i don't have time to further research this for now, but a section on the impact of prop 13 through the 80s, and props 187 & 209 through the 90s at UCLA, and a section summarizing research achievements during the Charles Young era should be written up. The "new era" of UC political strife sort of begins with 187 & 209 and, of course, 9/11. A section on "new frontiers/current research" in stem cells and nanotech could also be included. That's about all i can think of. Ameriquedialectics 04:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ranking[edit]

Although I rated this article as B-Class, I think it's very close to GA status or A-Class. Basically, the only reason I gave it a B is that there's not much of a WP:LEAD at the moment. szyslak 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Uclapowellsnow1932.JPG[edit]

The image Image:Uclapowellsnow1932.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UCLA BRUINS EST 1919[edit]

Why UCLA was established in 1919? Because my sweatshirt reads "UCLA BRUINS EST 1919." Because Bill Clinton said on May 20, 1994, at Pauley Pavilion, "I'm proud to be here to honor the University's 75th anniversary, ..." (Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis died that day.) Because UCLA Timeline has this entry: "1919 California Gov. William D. Stephens signs Assembly Bill 626, establishing the Southern Branch of the University of California. The Vermont Avenue campus opens on Sept. 15, offering two-year undergraduate programs to 260 Junior College students and 1,078 students in the Teachers Training program, under the direction of Ernest Carroll Moore." Because UCLA had these celebrations: "WWII PUT DAMPER ON 25TH ANNIVERSARY, BUT GALA CELEBRATIONS IN '69 HIGHLIGHTED 50TH BASH" The only thing to do with the State Normal School is that UCLA used the facilities on the Vermont Ave. for a few years. Ucla90024 (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur. The only unit at UCLA that can claim the 1891 founding date is the school of education. Ameriquedialectics 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recentism[edit]

This is classic recentism. This is easily one of those events that nobody will give a crap about a year from now, let alone a decade from now. The girl was completely non-notable prior to making the video, the school said it doesn't represent them and the girl is gone from the school. Had she been the class president, had the school made some significant policy change that somehow greatly impacted student's speech or something, there might be something beyond recentism. But there is nothing beyond it. A year from now, UCLA will still be known for many things, but nobody will remember Wallace's name or immediately associate UCLA with this minor incident. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Of course it's my opinion "Oakshade", just like it's your opinion that it belongs. But thanks for just reverting without discussion even after the discussion was started here. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Saying that everything in the section is going to be forgotten is really not realistic. A NCAA championship, regardless of sport, is inherently notable. The other event is an attempted murder in class, an event that is arguably far less common than some student saying something stupid on Youtube and certainly more serious (and notable) in its nature. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "taser incident"? The hacking of some social security numbers? These are items one can easily call "recentism." Nitshift, you are just singling out a heavily covered event for arbitrary reasons. It's only you who doesn't want this. Nice breaking 3RR too. --Oakshade (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • First, I didn't break the 3RR. Check the times. Second, there is nothing arbitrary about this. Third, none of those things you mentioned are in that section, so they really aren't relevant. One section at a time my friend. Lastly, the "it's only you" thing is a bullshit cop-out. This is the first you've even discussed it (even though you got off the topic and spent much of your time attacking me and not the issue) and you're acting like there was some sort of consensus reached. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Oakshade. Some of the incidents on this page are forgotten already. I don't understand why the murder case has about five references, while it's just one sentence. The UCLA taser incident even has its own main article, which I don't even understand. Nitshift, please be reasonable and put the piece of Alexandra Wallace back on the page. It may not be recent or important to you, but to numerous others, it is.(Fiatlut (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • Fiatlut, the taser thing is a different section. I haven't even started looking at that section. One at a time please. In THIS section, a NCAA title is certainly notable. An attempted murder during class looks relevant. I would ask you this: Do you truly believe that 5 years from now, anyone will really remember that video or the girl? Niteshift36 (talk)
  • Yes, I agree the NCAA title is notable. The attempted murder is also relevant as Alexandra Wallace. They are both explained in less than two sentences, yet the murder has about five references. Which I kind of find personally useless. If you want to do "one section at a time", do you want to continuously argue about the Alexandra Wallace section or move on?

You think Alexandra Wallace would be forgotten in several years. Truth is, not everything on Wikipedia is something that a place it remember. It is a place to learn. If you want people to know about this, they you put it up there. Yes, it is relevant because racism in America seems to represent only Martin Luther King Jr. and African Americans. No one remembers Caesar Chavez and his Latinos, no one knows of the Muslims and Sikhs murdered from anger over 9/11. And to teach them, you have to put it on wikipedia. For your sake I did not undo your edit. But if you fail to convince me, I will undo the edit. Fiatlut (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • For my sake? Are you for real? Comparing an attempted murder during a class to some brainless twit making a youtube video is absurb. While you sit hear, pretending like I am the only one, I find that you are attempting to force the same edit into another UCLA article and finding opposition there as well. All the other stuff you are talking about falls under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I don't care what some other topic has. We are talking about this one. Have you read WP:RECENTISM. I suspect not, otherwise you'd see this is a classic case of it. Another long-time editor and an admin have expressed the same thing I have. On the other hand, you have 24 edits on Wikipedia outside of your own page. Of those 24, 17 of them are about Alexandra Wallace. Just over 70% of your total involvement with Wikipedia is about this single issue. Given the small number of other topics, you are beginning to resemble a WP:Single-purpose account. Wikipedia is NOT a repository of trivia. The policy states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" Niteshift36 (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Actually, I quit doing it in that article, because they told me to do it in this article. So you think this should exist on "other crap exists." Funny you didn't back out. Although I'm flattered you have counted all my edits, I have to remind you, I must began on Wikipedia. But there are other "forgotten" events, such as the racist incident when Professor Henry Louis Gates got arrested for trying to break into his own home. Do you still remember that by now? As I said, it is the duty of Wikipedia to teach people these things, not to remind them.
  • Oh, and you definitely failed to convince me. Instead of defending your decision you personally attack me. Very clever. Fine, let's drop the argument and move on. Let's remove the taser incident. It's ridiculous and irrelevant. No one remembers it anymore. Besides, it has its own section. --Fiatlut (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sure they told you to put it here. It is minor crap and they figured shuffling you off to a minor branch article would keep you from putting it in the main article about the school. "other crap exists" is actually a shortcut to an essay on arguments to avoid. Did you read it? I don't know why you'd be flattered. It's not as if it takes that long to count to 24. What in the world does the Gates thing have to do with this? Short answer: nothing. It is the opposite of what you are talking about here. 1) Gates was already a notable person 2) It got not just attention, but actual intervention from the President of the US. Comparing it to a non-notable event like this shows you really don't understand the concept of notability on Wikipedia. On top of that, it has hardly been forgotten. It is well documented on Wikipedia, mainly because of the 2 reasons I listed. If you think there is a personal attack, I invite you to make a complaint. I know what I actually said and the context in which I said it. Lastly, remove the taser incident if you want. I won't oppose it at all. Someone else might, but I won't. I see it as a big to-do about nothing, but others have viewed it as more relevant. Bottom line: you appear to have some personal crusade about racism. That's fine. But separate that from what belongs in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to further your personal agenda. It is here to document notable items and this video isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, sure, whatever. I appreciate your support and interest in me. Thanks, and have a nice day. Fiatlut (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Nobody asked who she is. The question is, will anyone care or remember 5 years from now. And yes, I removed your childish personal attack. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was asked to comment on the inclusion of the taser incident in this article. UCLA Taser incident has a long, fully developed article. It survived on AfD in 2006 and I doubt it would be deleted in another AfD. Since it is here to stay, it is logical to have a short mention of the incident in this article. That is partly due to common sense, and partly due to WP:SUMMARY.   Will Beback  talk  03:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Apologies Will. Fiatlut can't seem to keep the issue of the Taser incident out of his every waking moment. The issue being discussed here is the Alexandra Wallace video. Fiatlut seems to thing that somehow the inclusion of the taser incident makes the Wallace non-incident somehow notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • We should definitely add something about the controversy... the discussion here seems to be full of ad hominems instead of the recentness involving this UCLA girl. It is even more recent than the Taser incident, and like the taser incident, it deals with racism. I don't see a reason why we shouldn't include it. Thedoucher (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it's illogical that voicing a shared opinion will automatically qualify me as a sockpuppet. Anyway, from what I read, you disagree with adding this controversy into this article because it doesn't seem to cause any long-term impacts. From what I think, this will be still be remembered for a time because of the implosion of controversy and the diversity of the UCLA campus. Why do you think people will forget this event?Thedoucher (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh, it's more than a "shared opinion" that makes socking likely. Why will people forget about it? They already have. Where is the media coverage? She is already so forgotten that comedians stopped using her as a punch line. Her 15 minutes are over. Move along. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the University of California, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the 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) 15:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the 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) 11:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thoughts about how to fix this mess[edit]

There are several problems with this article. Here is my brainstorming on how to fix it (so that people don't freak out whenever I get around to making major changes):

  • The article fails to explain how Dickson and Moore were able to bring about the transfer of the State Normal School at Los Angeles to the UC Board of Regents. The way this happened was because of a critical loophole in the state constitution and UC's Organic Act: both documents failed to expressly state that UC was to be the state's only university. Even though the legislature could not directly legislate for UC without UC's consent, the legislature found it could indirectly exert leverage over UC by threatening to create a second state university in Los Angeles independent of UC control. So UC was eventually coaxed into reluctantly agreeing to the transfer to avoid that unwanted outcome.
  • The article fails to evoke the north-south tension that was the defining feature of UC's internal politics for many years. Invariably UCLA would try to do something, Berkeley would say no, and UCLA kept pushing. Clark Kerr covers this tension in great detail in his memoirs.
  • The article fails to adequately explain the importance of the two changes in the campus name as part of UCLA's efforts to define itself as something different from and independent of Berkeley.
  • The article fails to cover how UCLA became a source of administrators for other UC campuses, including Riverside, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz.

--Coolcaesar (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_University_of_California,_Los_Angeles&oldid=1069861486"