Talk:University of California, Berkeley

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024

A comma should follow “University of California, Berkeley” if it’s written out in running prose; see MOS:GEOCOMMA. I see this is missing in the lede sentence at least. 103.203.255.65 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)\

 Already done: I couldn't find any instances in the body text but I did find two or three uses without the comma in the citations, which I fixed. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

File request on Commons

See: COM:R § Front doors of the Berkeley SCET on Commons. I'm thinking about adding info about the Sutardja Center to this article or Berkeley Engineering, and the requested image would be good illustration. If anyone is near the area, snapping a pic and uploading would be greatly appreciated! BhamBoi (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Lede additions must be verified, sourced, and adhere to due weight and lede policy

MadMedeiros Your additions to the lede of the article have given it an expansion, but much of the statements made have been done without first ensuring that they are appropriately verified, sourced, and adhere to the policies regarding due weight and article ledes. For example, many of your changes added information to the lede that were unverified in the body, giving WP:UNDUE weight to the information, even if it is sourced. You might also want to review WP:BOOSTER regarding similar issues and tone, along with the prevailing consensus on information regarding reputation, prestige, and rankings. GuardianH (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Supreme Court Ruling Enshrines UC Berkeley Authority over Development

"On March 11, 2022, state legislators released a proposal to change CEQA to exempt the university from its restrictions.[83] On March 14, Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law.[84] On June 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of California upheld UC Berkeley's exemption from CEQA. Berkeley has continued to face a housing shortage.[85]" 2600:1700:488:C380:55C6:FDC0:10EB:A918 (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It means that after 50 years Berkeley will finally be rid of that eyesore People's Park (Berkeley). Not something that belongs in the main article for a 150-year-old institution. EEng 01:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede: "It has been regarded as one of the top universities in the world."

Nightshade2000 and ElKevbo, this lede statement still falls short of WP:HIGHEREDREP, namely that it continues to lack due weight, particularly in the body which it does not appropriately reflect.

For one, the statement is not verified in the body, where neither of its two sources are present. We do have a Reputation and Rankings section, but the global reputation is limited to just one paragraph under Past rankings and two bullet-points for rankings. We get plenty of rankings, but these do not provide the extensive coverage as to prominently place in the lede that Berkeley "has been regarded as one of the top universities in the world." Like I pointed out in Stanford University, the statement jumps the gun on relevance; we should have multiple paragraphs expounding much greater on reputation, but there is only miscellaneous rankings under the section.

Also, there hasn't been an adequate consensus established regarding its addition, like would otherwise be described by WP:HIGHEREDREP. There should be expansions done on the article before the statement is added. GuardianH (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Guardian,

I disagree that the ledes contents are irrelevant, as the third paragraph of the article mentions the public ivy and information that supports the statement (such as the size of the university library, which is often considered when ranking universities). In addition to the third paragraph and the examples in 13, multiple sources throughout the article comment on the universities rank (see sources 28, 29, for example...). Also, the reason why the sources in 13 do not appear in the miscellaneous rankings section is because they are not quantitative rankings at all. Both these quotes acknowledge the rich history and status the university still holds in the public eye. While superficial, that information is still incredibly important in an article about a 100+ year old university.

However, after reading through WP:HIGHEREDREP, I do think the wording should be changed for the purpose of explicitly referencing the wording of the supporting material. Instead of has been regarded as one of the top universities in the world I propose "Due to its rich history and numerous scientific contributions, it has been regarded as one of the top public universities in the world.". As the supporting material does not use quantitative metrics to justify the prestige, instead using qualitative data (like history etc) reported in the source articles.

I am undoing the removal because, again, please discuss it here and establish consensus before removing/adding what was agreed upon. The previous version was agreed upon here, and we should discuss improvements or disagreements before editing the article. Nightshade2000 (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

None of what you've written above has addressed any of the points I raised, and your proposed change to the sentence is even more unrepresentative and more obviously an abridgment of WP:SYNTH, WP:AESTHETIC, and WP:HIGHEREDREP. Ironically, the onus was originally on you to establish consensus for the change (which you still haven't done), not the other way around — having a tenuous agreement between yourself and one other editor falls short of an established consensus. For the aforementioned and other shortfalls of WP:HIGHEREDREP and WP:UNDUE, tagged for booster. GuardianH (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"The statement is not verified in the body, where neither of its two sources are present."

To address this, the sources provided (Selingo and Thoenig) should be incorporated into the body of the article, specifically in the "Reputation and Rankings" section. This will ensure that the lede accurately reflects the detailed content of the article.

Proposed Action: Add the following text to the "Reputation and Rankings" section:

• Selingo, Jeffrey. "Our dangerous obsession with Harvard, Stanford and other elite universities". The Washington Post:
  • "UC Berkeley is mentioned as one of the elite public universities that are the pride of the American higher-education system around the world."
• Thoenig, Jean-Claude. "Organizational Governance and the Production of Academic Quality: Lessons from Two Top U.S. Research Universities". Minerva:
  • "UC Berkeley is consistently ranked as a top university internationally, recognized for its long tenure in the first decile of various classifications."

I understand your concerns about the need for verification within the article body. So we can add these other sources that recognize UC Berkeley's reputation if you think it necessary:

1. Times Higher Education consistently ranks UC Berkeley among the world's top six universities, highlighting its strong global reputation (Berkeley News, 2017, 2018).
2. The Princeton Review also acknowledges UC Berkeley's outstanding reputation. They describe Berkeley as having "great faculty, great research, great classes, and everyone knows it," emphasizing its prestigious standing in academia and the broader educational community​ (The Princeton Review)​.
3. A study in Minerva acknowledges UC Berkeley as a top-ranked university internationally, citing its longstanding reputation for excellence (Thoenig, Jean-Claude).

I propose we include these sources both in the lead and within the body of the article, under the 'Reputation and Rankings' section, to ensure compliance with WP and provide a well-rounded view of Berkeley's global standing.

"having a tenuous agreement between yourself and one other editor falls short of an established consensus".

We can RfC or just discuss it ourselves and figure something out. That one editor and myself were the only ones discussing it at the time... There hasn't really been anyone opposed to the lede (at least not on the talk page) and no one has posted on the original discussion in a while... There isn't really anyone else to talk about it with, so its difficult to establish a large consensus when its pretty much the same 3 or 4 people on the talk page here. Which is fine, so long as we all reach an agreement. Nightshade2000 (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Already there are multiple issues with your proposed changes. Firstly, you misquote both Selingo in The Washington Post and misquote Thoenig in Minerva — none of your two selected quotations are wholly in either of them, and it looks like you just decided to summate and elide portions of the actual texts. Yes, they are supposed to be in the body, where they can provide some actually substantive material rather than just a data hoard of miscellaneous rankings.

Secondly, this discussion has been working completely backwards — the statement as it stands was unsupported with neither consensus nor policy from the beginning, and now you're working to try to get a body for a sentence rather than a sentence for a body with the aim of keeping that one sentence regardless. That isn't how ledes are done; you might want to see WP:CIVILPOV. It doesn't help that your edits are, broadly construed, promotional to the university. All of your user edits have been on Berkeley. When asked about a COI with the university, you replied in the negative, but you haven't provided an answer as to what your connection to the university is if you have one. You should clarify what your relationship is to the article subject and whether it would be a conflict of interest. WP:SPA accounts like yours give the immediate impression of advocacy.

Thirdly, rankings themselves prove little, and listing them all doesn't actually support the statement, which is why sources similar to Thoenig are so important. You say there hasn't been a consensus, but you still conveniently ignore WP:HIGHEREDREP and haven't stated how exactly the sentence is supported by it. Of course, the fact is that the statement falls short of the stringent requirements outlined by WP:HIGHEREDREP. You are going against the established consensus keeping the sentence in the article; it should be removed and added only when it finally supports the body and has the appropriate representation. Until then, you are trying hard to maintain an undue weight. GuardianH (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

False information on alumni

The alumni section under "Notable People" mentions 14 Fields Medalists, but this is false (that would be literally every (or almost every) American Fields Medalist). Berkeley has produced 2 as alumni, but would count quite a few if you included faculty. FunctionalPhil (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. ElKevbo (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Change on the nobel prize number of UC berkeley

According to the official website of UC Berkeley (https://inspire.berkeley.edu/get-inspired/nobels/), there are 55 nobel prizes awarded to Berkeley's faculties and alumni. The current link can't be opened and is not a comprehensive list of Berkeley's nobel winners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1255979u (talk • contribs) 07:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The Nobel site times out, but is that a permanent outage? The UC site lists the 55, while the Wikipedia article linked to in the lead also gives 21. There's quite a difference there. I can't quibble with the UC site, but we could use a more reliable source and should maintain consistency across Wikipedia articles. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The current count listed on the Nobel page also only accounts for university affiliations at the time the award was received. This means alumni, faculty and scholars who may have left Berkeley aren't counted. I remember the Nobel Prize count for Berkeley was as high as 107 on the Wikipedia page before, as it included alumni, former faculty and visiting scholars in the total medal count. There used to be a link that led to a separate Wikipedia page listing all of the affiliated scholars and their connections with the university. Columbia, Princeton and Harvard still have pages like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_affiliated_with_Columbia_University_as_alumni_or_faculty). It appears this is an issue not only on the Berkeley page, but across multiple universities. Btn912 (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not just the matter that the other universities e.g. Columbia etc., may have such list, there is no sufficient reason to delete (technically, redirect to another page).

Also, it is always no necessity to be affiliated to a university only for alumni with completed degree or faculty during a specified event. Bill Gate is always at the pages of Harvard even he dropped out.

It is already meaningful to have a page providing who are related to a university. I would suggest - may be have a vote, to recover to page of Nobel Laureates affiliated to UC Berkeley - as those of other universities. 218.250.208.166 (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

Updated Nobel Medal Count

This is the webpage to link for UC Berkeley's official medal count for only alumni and faculty, not including researchers: https://inspire.berkeley.edu/get-inspired/nobels/

Most universities and their respective Wikipedia include alumni, faculty AND researchers on their total medal count. They do not appear to use the official Nobel Foundation's list of affiliations at the time of award. This is why for example, Columbia University's Wikipedia list lists 103 prizes as they include researchers and visiting scholars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_affiliated_with_Columbia_University_as_alumni_or_faculty). Btn912 (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's meaningful to have such a page to any school.

The sentense in the article, "Berkeley's alumni, faculty, and researchers include 21 Nobel laureate", is totally different to the source refer to, as the Nobel official page just couts the current affiliation, NOT "alumni, (non-current) faculty, and researchers". This statement is misleading. Old Good Quaker (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Disagreement by another editor: no consensus. ⸺(Random)staplers 22:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, why hide/ delete the original page for laureates' affiliation and redirect to a page JUST for affiliation of the time awarded, not only UC Berkeley but also many others, e.g., Humboldt University of Berlin?

It is also inconsistent if many universities may keep such a page, e.g., UPenn (NOT suggesting deleting them all, but the pages of UC Berkeley and HU Berlin shall not be hidden/ deleted for the same situation, as you said, no consensus. Old Good Quaker (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Berkeley Endowment

A disagreement has been raised by BUjjsp regarding the endowments held by the UC Regents and the UC Berkeley Foundation.

According to the University of California Single Audit report for FY2023, "endowments and gifts are held and administered either by the University [of California] or by the campus foundations." For the "UC Regents" endowment, these investments are controlled by the Regents of the University of California, and "the portion of investment returns earned on endowments held by the University [of California] and distributed at the end of each year to support current operations for the following year is based upon a rate that is approved by The Regents." The "UC Regents" endowment is not owned or managed by the campuses and/or their foundations. The campuses receive a distribution if/as approved by the UC Regents.[1]

This ownership is reflected in the NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments (NCSE)[2] and Berkeley's own reporting to the United States Department of Education in IPEDS.[3]

Fiscal Year	Endowment (in billions)
	IPEDS	NACUBO	Foundation
2022	$2.73	$2.65	$2.65
2021	$2.99	$2.92	$2.92
2020	$2.17	$2.12	$2.12
2019	$2.14	$2.07	$2.07
2018	$2.00	$1.94	$1.94

There is reliable data submitted by Berkeley to the federal government and further supported by the standardized NACUBO study. Based off of previous endowment discussions, ElKevbo and Smokefoot, please feel free to add to the discussion. Redraiderengineer (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The Board of Regents annual report clearly says that the university has a total endowment of $7.4 billion. Yes, that includes $4.5 billion managed by the UC Regents for this particular university that don't seem to be included in what is reported in some other sources. But this figure seems to be more accurate so I don't see why we wouldn't use it in this article.

There is some merit to insisting on comparable definitions and reported figures for an article that exists explicitly to compare endowments for different institutions. But that is not what is happening in this article so we should use the most current and accurate information that is available. ElKevbo (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned, $4.5 billion in the GEP is held and administered by the UC Regents. However, the "University [of California] is both trustee and beneficiary" (not the campuses).[4] The purpose of the annual endowments report is to "provide the Regents' Committee on Investments with an overview." The report specifies that reporting the total of the endowments is an internal policy.

Both the Regents data and the figure from the NACUBO study previously in the article are from June 30, 2023 (end of FY2023).

How are you determining accuracy? Given that Berkeley reports endowment data to the federal government, why wouldn't that figure be accurate? Redraiderengineer (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If the system office holds endowment funds for the campus, why would we not include that in the article (as is done in the system's own report)? ElKevbo (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2024

There is a typo concerning the "History" section of the University of California, Berkeley page. Specifically, at the end of the 3rd paragraph under "Founding," the page repeats the section

"Although the University of California system does not have an official flagship campus, many scholars and experts consider Berkeley to be its unofficial flagship. In some cases, it shares this unofficial status with the University of California, Los Angeles.[36]"

I am requesting that the repeated sentences be deleted for the purpose of clarity and resolution of error.

Thank you, BB Ben Backwards (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WSJ Ranking

Berkeley is ranked 8th in the latest WSJ/Pulse rankings for 2025. This needs to be updated on the page. 204.14.36.84 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2024

This page wrongly states that "Berkeley's alumni, faculty, and researchers include 21 Nobel laureates."

According to its official website (https://www.berkeley.edu/about/history-discoveries/#:~:text=For%20over%20150%20years%2C%20UC,winners%20and%2035%20alumni%20winners.), Berkeley states that it has in fact produced "26 faculty Nobel Prize winners and 35 alumni winners."

I request the current phrase be changed from "21 Nobel laureates" to "61 Nobel Laureates," since the current page grossly understates the actual number of Nobel laureates who were Berkeley alumni or faculty.

Thank you. 59.6.221.187 (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Berkeley's website seems to conflict with the number given on Nobel's website. The article List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation also only seems to list 21 laureates. Berkeley's website might be using a different metric to count laureates than the Nobel Committee/Wikipedia does. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: See above ⸺(Random)staplers 18:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2024

Change "Berkeley's alumni, faculty, and researchers include 21 Nobel laureates[21]" to Berkeley's alumni, faculty, and researchers include 55 Nobel laureates.

According to the official website of Berkeley (https://inspire.berkeley.edu/get-inspired/nobels/), the school has at least 55 nobel prizes laureates, not including many nobel prizes winners that taught in the university but hadn't been included in the record.

CI think it would also be better if we include that fact that Berkeley has been consistently ranked as number 1 public university in the US and even the world, according to US News global universities ranking 2023. Thanks! 1255979u (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done meamemg (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Nobel list was limited to "This list shows the universities, research institutions or companies Nobel Laureates were affiliated with at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement. Only Nobel Laureates in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology or Medicine, and Laureates in Economic Sciences are shown in the list." Statement in lead was broader and included alumni, etc, so the 55 number seems more accurate. meamemg (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)