Talk:Compton Cookout

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notes

Hi! Here are my notes so far:

This needed a lead section, so I started one for you.

Be careful of tone, as some parts of this are written a little casually and come across a little jumbled. I've tweaked the Black Winter section for you as an example.

I'm not sure that all of the prior content needs to be in the article. I'd recommend summarizing it in a paragraph or two, a smaller subsection. The main thing to do here would be to make several bullet points of the most important things, along with sourcing:

According to page 218 of this book, the person who founded the college (Roger Revelle) intended for USCD to house an elite group of students that would in turn educate "less talented" students at other local colleges. To choose these elite he used criteria and systems such as IQ numbers, which served to block enrollment for any poor and minority people who were unable to access proper education - something that the author states launched UCSD's history of using "artifically stringent and biased admissions criteria rather than educating in a democratic fashion".
USCD Guardian stated in 1992 that the minority enrollment rates were falling despite rising rates of eligibility among minority high school students, which UCSA Vice President John Edson believed was due to fee increases.
The San Diego Union Tribune states that this number is still very low.
On KPBS, around the time of the Compton Cookout, students stated that racism at the college went deeper than the events.
Since the Black Winter, there have been continued incidents on campus, such as the Trump racist graffiti and the Identity Evropa Banner, which was hung on a college building.

I'd leave off the shooting since that didn't happen on campus and as such, would very likely be challenged and removed. That they didn't call it a racially motivated event could be seen by many editors as more of a failing of the police and the racial atmosphere of San Diego as opposed to the racial atmosphere of UCSD. If there was more non-primary coverage of this or if it happened on campus it would be different, as it would be easier to justify highlighting it, but right now it would just be seen as original research to use it as an example of the racial tensions at UCSD. What we need here is independent, reliable sources to include that.

I'd also leave off the mention of the buildings since so far we don't have any sourcing that specifically criticizes USCD for naming its buildings after people who are associated with racism (drew racist things, backed racist viewpoints, etc). This is a tricky situation. The people are associated with racism or things associated with racism, but what we need to justify highlighting these things would be sources that specifically criticize (or mention where others have criticized) UCSD for naming the buildings after these people. The same goes for the lack of minority students attending the Thurgood Marshall college. While we do have sources that brings various parts of these claims together, they don't actually say "People have criticized UCSD for naming their colleges after these people", which is what is specifically needed here.

Be careful about trying to use the page as a soapbox. What I mean by this is that the article cannot be used to raise awareness for things that haven't really gained coverage or at least, the specific type of coverage needed to back up the claims in the article. It stinks - believe me, I've been in similar situations where I've really wanted to include something in an article but couldn't because it didn't have the needed coverage. However we can't use the page as a way to make up for the lack of overall coverage for these issues, no matter how much we may really, really want to. Wikipedia's guidelines are pretty strict on this end and unfortunately I can guarantee that anything that doesn't have good sourcing would be deleted or otherwise removed from Wikipedia.

This has actually prompted more than a few people to go out and publish content in places that Wikipedia would be able to use as sourcing, to help make up for this gap in coverage and information. For example, some journals for undergraduates can include the ones listed here, although there are journals like this one who accept papers from anyone.

I hope that this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: Hiring practices

Hi! For hiring practices and admissions I added some statistics from a report that identifies that there are more white folk employed on campus. There was only one citation. I have also deleted the "adding more about hiring practices" comment because I have added to this section. I have added citations for the information that was missing proper citations.I feel that this section identifies the problem but does not really have information on what these hiring practices are. However, the statistics of how there is a disproportionate percentage of black & POC in the academic senate are important to include. I have also added the section on the University's response post Compton Cookout. This section includes the Teach-in, office of EDI, and the EDI Unit plan.

--Xvndyy (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack

I've deleted multiple sections that aren't directly related to the article subject. It's a practice called WP:COATRACK and frankly it made this article look like a highly unbalanced hachet piece written by a decidedly partisan author. That belongs in a blog, not on Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]