Talk:Northern Illinois University

Keeping it current

I can't understand how sentences like this

• For the last ten years, U.S. News & World Report has ranked the Northern Illinois University College of Business as among the best business colleges in the country. In 2006, the NIU College of Business continued to be ranked as among the nation's best by making the listing of "America's Best Colleges and Programs" (2007).

can survive. I mean, when did this supposed ten year period begin? Is this current or dated? Someone who knows the dates needs to change it to something like this:

• Since 1997, U.S. News & World Report has ranked the Northern Illinois University College of Business as among the best business colleges in the country. In 2006, the NIU College of Business continued to be ranked as among the nation's best by making the listing of "America's Best Colleges and Programs" (2007).

Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've waited nearly two years, and no one ever corrected the above, so I've made a change. But I'm just guessing, and I still wish someone knowledgeable would come in and fix it and cite it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NIU Huskies.gif

The image Image:NIU Huskies.gif 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. --23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphan sentence

The following sentence is currently located in the "Departmental rankings" section: The NIU School of Theatre and Dance has a unique relationship with the Moscow Art Theatre School. Graduate students spend a month training in Moscow, while the undergraduates participate in a semester-long program. This obviously has nothing to do with rankings, yet I think it is something noteworthy and suitable for inclusion in the article. But I can't figure out where. Any ideas? HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Change in US News ranking methodology

I'm going to have to revert a good faith edit here, and want to explain, since it will no doubt be confusing.

The US News rankings have become, for better or worse, a major source for many people wanting to learn about the quality of a university or college. I think that it is something that people come here looking for, and I therefore think it belongs in the article.

Unfortunately, one needs to pay attention, because they make changes in their methodology from time to time. This year there was a big change which caused someone (quite understandably) to jump the gun. Our beloved NIU, which has trudged in the bottom quartile (Tier 4) every year that I have checked the rankings, this year is listed as Tier 2! Looks great, right? Instead of being ranked in the bottom 25% of National Universities, it looks like we are now in the top half. I was immediately suspicious of this, because I have never seen a school jump two tiers in a single year. I have been patiently waiting for our administration to get off their asses and do something to make us proud and get us at least up to Tier 3, and so this was amazing news.

Well, it's just not so. Are we now in Tier 2? Yes. But guess what? US News is no longer dividing the National Universities into four tiers, they're just divided in two tiers. But wait--it gets worse. According to US News's FAQ explanation of their new rankings:

The schools in the bottom 25 percent of each group are listed alphabetically as the Second Tier; which was previously called the Fourth Tier. This means that we have eliminated the Third Tier from the rankings

So guess what, we haven't moved one bit (and, for the record, I'd like to see the entire Board of Trustees fired by Governor Quinn and replaced by someone who gives a shit), despite the change in label.

Some people have tried to whitewash this in the past. But this is a major part of the image of American universities today, and we need to get it together. Take a look at some of the schools ranked with us. This is Wikipedia, so I won't be rude and mention any names, but I know that I'm not happy.

One more thing, for those new to such things: None of this takes away the fact that NIU is still a major university. There are loads of other four-year colleges (including EIU and WIU in our own state) that aren't even good enough to make the cut and be classified as a "National University". So there's nothing for us to be embarrassed about, but there is something greater for us to aspire to. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Boosterism

I don't care how much we may love NIU, if we try to pack the article full of boosterism, it only embarrasses us.HuskyHuskie (talk)

My updates are not an attempt at boosterism; they are an attempt to bring a sorely out-of-date entry up-to-date with the latest information about Northern Illinois University. Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan

Opening Sentence

POV description of NIU’s location

• Located in one of the most dynamic and vibrant regions of the country.

Are you serious? How do we justify a statement like that--and in the second sentence of the article, for pete's sake?HuskyHuskie (talk)

"We" justify a statement like that by noting that NIU is just 60 miles west of Chicago Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan

I'm not talking about the location. I'm talking about the POV statement that NIU inhabits "one of the most dynamic and vibrant regions of the country". That's unsourced blatant POV. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Proper use of the opening sentence

But, as long as you're mentioning the location "60 miles west of Chicago", you need to read WP:LEAD, which recommends that notability of the subject be established in the first sentence. As the example they give of this, they give the following:

Amalie Emmy Noether was a German mathematician known for her groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and her contributions to theoretical physics.

We would not write:

Amalie Emmy Noether was a German mathematician born in 1882.

The second example simply fails to meet the obligation to make the best use of the opening sentence. Similarly, starting the article by noting that NIU is 60 (or 65) miles west of Chicago tells us almost nothing significant. It is far more significant that it is the second largest university in Illinois. Anyone can look at a map of NIU and tell it's location, but the fact that it is THE major university in the northern half of the state is not so obvious, and noting this makes for a better start of the article. Here's another way to think about it: Look at the following possible opening sentences for real Wikipedia articles:

• Ellwood House is a private house located 65 miles west of Chicago.
• Joseph Glidden was an American farmer who lived 65 miles west of Chicago.
• Barbed wire is a type of fencing wire that was invented 65 miles west of Chicago.
• Isaac L. Ellwood was the owner of a hardware store located 65 miles west of Chicago.

Looks silly, doesn't it? But we could start every single article about anything in DeKalb the same way. Most good writers are likely to recognize that if an opening sentence can be used equally well for any number of essays or articles, it probably isn't a very strong or desireable opening sentence.HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It does look silly, but that's because Ellwood House, Joseph Glidden, Barbed wire, and Isaac L. Ellwood are not a major public university in northern Illinois. By stating that the university is 65 miles west of Chicago, it gives the reader the context of location. "Northern" Illinois could mean Freeport or Rockford, but "65 miles west of Chicago" means that for anyone in the suburbs, it's a relatively short drive to out to NIU. It also means that for any student at NIU, there might be some pretty good job and internship opportunities in the Chicagoland area. Readers shouldn't have to look at a map to tell it's location. I don't have a problem saying that NIU is the second largest university in Illinois, but it's the fact that you insist on mentioning the University of Illinois in that opening sentence. This is a page about NIU. Also, your backhanded "Most good writers ... " comment is rude.Huskiesfan (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• It does look silly, but that's because Ellwood House, Joseph Glidden, Barbed wire, and Isaac L. Ellwood are not a major public university in northern Illinois. That is completely circular reasoning, and it makes me wonder if you understand that people often make their point by analogy. The point was and remains that if the context that you provide in the opening sentence would serve equally well for countless other articles, then it really doesn’t provide much valuable context at all. Besides, who are you to say that NIU’s location relative to Chicago is more important than providing Ellwood House’s location relative to Chicago? One could easily argue that, as NIU is much more well known than Ellwood House, that the latter’s location relative to Chicago is more needed in the article. But that’s really a very minor point; the primary point here is that the opening sentence should, according to WP:LEAD, provide useful context. Does your 65 miles west obervation provide context? Yes, but it’s very weak, since it could be used for so many other articles. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Additionally, your observation about the location relative to Chicago . . . means that for any student at NIU, there might be some pretty good job and internship opportunities in the Chicagoland area.. That's called OR. I'm sure to you it appears to be common sense, but it's the kind of speculative boast that we expect NIU to put on its own website, but which Wikipedia cannot place in its articles.HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem saying that NIU is the second largest university in Illinois, but it's the fact that you insist on mentioning the University of Illinois in that opening sentence. I have two reasons why I disagree with you about the inclusion of UIUC; 1) one based upon Wikipedia (and encyclopedic practice, in general), and 2) the other based upon my own personal experiences I can hear it now--"there's no place in Wikipedia for personal experience!", but I'm not talking about my personal experience in the article, I'm merely using it to illustrate a point. Give me a moment, in a moment._ Let me explain each separately:

1.It is entirely common and proper to begin articles with such-and-such is the second largest; only so-and-so is larger. The following are just a few of literally thousands of examples I could use of articles that do what you object to. These are all the first sentence of the current versions of their respective articles:

• Los Angeles is the most populous city in California and the second most populous in the United States, after New York City[1]
• Argentina, officially the Argentine Republic, is the second largest country in South America, after Brazil.[2]
• Africa is the world's second-largest and second most-populous continent, after Asia.[3]
• K2 is the second-highest mountain on Earth after Mount Everest. [4]
• The basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) is the second largest living shark, after the whale shark.[5]

These articles are not about New York City, Brazil, Asia, Mt. Everest, or the whale shark, yet those are all mentioned in their opening sentence. This is because doing so provides some valuable context.

2.Secondly, I have found over the years, traveling around the country, if a state has a "University of Foobar" and a "Foobar State University", there is a fairly widespread assumption on the part of many people that these are the two largest public universities in the state. In most cases, this is probably true (Michigan, Michigan State) or was true in the past (Florida, Florida State). But in Illinois, if this was ever true, it hasn't been true in probably 50-100 years. I can't tell you how often I have heard people assume that my wife, who attended Illinois State, attended one of the two largest and most prestigious schools in the state, which is just bullshit. So I've rather liked that this article has, for a while, pointed out something that is not only rather notable, but is also not likely to be known. Of course, there's just one problem with this, as you point out next . . . HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, you are wrong about NIU being the second-largest university in Illinois, it's the third. Both UIUC and UIC have larger enrollments than NIU.Huskiesfan (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making that correction. But the way you make your point (saying, "you are wrong") makes me wonder if you understand that I have not written this article. Indeed, over 500 editors (assuming the anons are all different, which I admit, is not really all that likely) have contributed to this article, and that particular fact was not my contribution. All I’ve done is continue to include it—I’ve never claimed to fact check the entire article; we rely on each other, all well intentioned editors, like yourself, to keep things straight. (And I don’t mean to criticize the editor who added that; it was three years ago, and for all I know, it was accurate at the time.)HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Carnegie designation vs. Size

• NIU is one of only four public universities in Illinois to be designated a high research activity institution by the prestigious Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Oh my god. How many public universities are there in Illinois? Eleven, if you count UIS (which hardly fits in the same category as NIU, so I won't count it). So this means that 36-40% of all the public universities are so designated. Not really a very exclusive group, is it? Certainly nothing to brag about (not that we should be bragging at all).HuskyHuskie (talk)

Not bragging ... just a valid point. It is important to note that NIU has that designation. Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan

Is it true? Sure. Is it “valid”, or "important to note"? Well, besides the issue of whether it rises to the point of adequate significance to include in the lead, there is the point that it may be perceived as deceptive. Why? Saying “one of only four” implies exclusivity. Four out of a thousand would certainly be "exclusive" enough to mention. Maybe even four out of 100. But is four out of eleven “exclusive”? I grant you that it’s a matter of opinion, and that honest people can disagree on it. But it’s certainly less exclusive than noting that it is one of the two largest universities in the state out of of—how many universities are there in Illinois? At least 50. It seems to me to make more sense to make the reference to it being in the top 5% of universities by size than the fact that it is in the top 37% of universities in terms of membership in the Carnegie categorization. Which, I might add, has been given the POV label “prestigious” Carnegie Foundation, another thing that needs to be corrected (or supported with objective sources).HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You're babbling about semantics. I'll remove the "prestigious" label.Huskiesfan (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We are not playing a game of marbles or building a kite. We are writing, and writing an encyclopedia, at that. Semantics is not something to dismiss, it's one of the most crucial elements of our product. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

NIU "leads the way"

• NIU faculty and students now lead the way in cutting edge research and exceptional hands-on learning opportunities in programs nationally accredited for meeting the highest standards of academic quality, including those in business, engineering and engineering technology, chemistry, nursing, law, visual and performing arts and teacher certification.

Is anyone else embarrassed by this raw boosterism? NIU "leads the way"? Do you suppose they recognize this fact in Champaign, let alone Boston? This is simply ridiculous.HuskyHuskie (talk)

NIU’s proximity to Chicago culture

• NIU’s proximity and connections to the Chicago metropolitan area afford enhanced academic, professional, service and cultural opportunities.

Well, this is less offensive than the rest of the stuff I've seen so far. But it bugs me, because I've seen this sort of claim before, and--speaking only for myself--I never found it particularly easy to pop over from DeKalb to downtown Chicago for enhanced "cultural opportunities". Basically garbage.HuskyHuskie (talk)

Your opinion only; not helpful, nor does it respect the talk page guidelines 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan

I'm not sure how my comment violates talk page guidelines, but if what I said was offensive, I apologize, and I await correction and edification.HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It was offensive because you called my writing garbage. Also not sure how can you say that it's not easy to "pop over from DeKalb to downtown Chicago." It's 20 minutes to the Elburn Metra Station.Huskiesfan (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and then from there it's another hour to get anywhere! Hey, I think we can probably agree this is just a matter of perspective. Look I'm from Aurora, and even from there I didn't consider it to be a quick pop to downtown. Hell, one of the transformational moments of my life occurred in the early 70s when we finally got a White Castle all the way out in the boonies of Aurora (at Lake St. and Indian Trail), allowing us to finally get our favorite Friday night feast without the hassle of going in to the city. I guess it's all a matter of opinion, but to me, living in DeKalb is not much different--in terms of cultural access--than living in Dixon or Streator. Well, actually, that's not true, because at NIU itself there's more going on than in the real small towns. But to me, a trip into Chicago constituted an expedition.HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

US News rankings and categorization

"Elite" National University category?

• U.S. News & World Report ranks NIU in its elite “National Universities” category.

This is actually something that I added to the article a few years back. But then another editor pointed out that it is wrong to consider the National University category to be the most elite or prestigious, as there are a great many small liberal arts colleges that are generally considered more prestigious than many "National Universities". Best not to include this, I now realize.HuskyHuskie (talk)

That's your opinion. We can omit the word "elite" but it is worth mentioning that NIU is ranked in that category. Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan

I have not only agreed to mentioning that it was in that category, I believe I'm the first one to have ever noted that fact. My (mild) objection was to the word "elite", which I see with your edits you restored, despite your comment above; I'm sure it was an oversight, I assume you meant to do it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

US News rankings over the years

• Recent contributors to this article have taken pains to include the assessment of all kinds of organizations' take on NIU, yet (not so) curiously they have removed the single most prominent ranking from the article: US News. Universities across the country bend over backward to try to improve their US News rankings, because they believe it to be the one that most people pay attention to. Yet this is deleted from our school's article. Hmmmm. I wonder why. Given the fact that some of the above writing is the same as the current university's website has, maybe someone in the administration has opened a Wikipedia account? HuskyHuskie (talk)

I intend to provide updated rankings information. The other rankings were out of date. Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan

Sorry, but that explanation indicates that you did not look carefully at all the sources. The most recent (2011) rankings were already included; the older ones that were also included were there to back up the statement that NIU's stature in the US News rankings has not altered appreciably for many years. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

North Central Association Accreditation

• NIU is also accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.

Big hairy deal. Same thing can be said of every other university in the Midwest. Probably not worthy of inclusion in the article, but definitely not worthy of inclusion in the lead section.HuskyHuskie (talk)

Your opinion only, which seems to be particularly negative. I believe this detail should be included. Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan

Perhaps it should be included somewhere in the article, in the event that someone somehow came to the conclusion that NIU was the only one of Illinois' 50+ universities not to be so accredited by the North Central Association. But no, it does not belong in the lead.

And for the record, I resent the insinuation that my attitude is negative. I doubt many editors have as longstanding or as fond a connection to NIU as have I; I started using the NIU facilities when I was in high school which was long before the average Wikipedia editors was born, and no one has spent more time trying to improve this article than I have. You mistake my passion for objectivity (the irony is intentional) for negativity; to me your passion for positivity comes across as boosterism, and I think most other readers will see it that way as well. If it looks like we are trying to make NIU look 100% wonderful with no blemishes whatsoever, it makes us look to the rest of the country like country bumpkins. I take you at your word that you really love NIU like the other editors here, and I ask you to help us create the highest quality article, not just a piece of university propaganda, which will ultimately do more to enhance our reputation. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

NIU satellite status

• The removal of the statement that NIU started as a satellite of ISNU. This was something that I was told on my very first tour at NIU back in the 1970s. I have always assumed it to be true. I must admit, however, that I can not find anything that supports the statement, so perhaps it is one of those things that I have just mistakenly believed for decades. I think that the statement at the beginning of the history section: Northern Illinois University was founded . . . as part of the expansion of the normal school program established in 1857 in Normal, Illinois. is pretty good, however, and the research I have done does support this.HuskyHuskie (talk)

Academics Section

• The Academics section is just unreadable now. It needed expansion, but not like this.HuskyHuskie (talk)

Wikipedia is a community effort, and I have the right to make updates and corrections to this page just as you do. Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan

Yes you do. But they need to take into consideration Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV, which several of your edits clearly did not. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I'm going to start making some fixes to this, but I'm not sure how much I can do right now. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good faith non-edit warring

I feel I would be more than justified in returning this article--at least the lead section--to the way I last left it. But instead of doing that, I've only made a couple of edits which I believe will be non-controversial. I want to make it clear that having not made more extensive changes does not constitute an acceptance on my part of the article's current state. I simply wish to first have a chance to discuss things and work it all out peaceably.HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made several contributions to this page that make it better than the way you last left it. The additional information on academics, student life, the residence halls and university presidents expands and improves the scope of this article. You do not own this article, and you have to be willing to let others contribute to it.Huskiesfan (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree you've made some good contributions to the article, and I think you'll find that most of what you just mentioned I have left untouched. I think adding the list of Presidents was a good thing, and I am particularly impressed by the time you spent on the residence halls. I was a bit puzzled by this edit, but did not change it because I wanted to talk to you about it first (my question has to do with the deletion of the off-campus section, and why you thought it necessary). I would not have removed the section header as you did here for Greek Life, but the way you organized it, while different than what I would have done, was perfectly acceptable per all guidelines. This edit, like this one, added much good information to the article, though eventually I would like them better crafted as paragraphs (right now, they seem to exist in a netherworld between prose and bulleted lists). But not being perfect right away is not critical--it's good to get the information in there.

No, I think you need to acknowledge that in fact, I have not been guilty of trying to own this article, and that the vast majority of your work I've left untouched. And really, over the years, I've not contributed all that much to the content, since most of it was here when I first came to Wikipedia. In terms of your edits, most of the changes I've made have been stylistic in nature. You've added things that no loyal Huskie would take issue with, but things nevertheless which did not belong in Wikipedia. I have no idea how much experience you've had on Wikipedia, but I truly believe that 90% of all editors would agree that many of your contributions were examples of peacock words.HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Rudeness and Giving Credit

Above, you make the following comments:

• Also, your backhanded "Most good writers ... " comment is rude.
• It was offensive because you called my writing garbage.

Okay, I suppose, if you want to do so, you can take offense at these things. But if your skin isn't any thicker than that, you're not going to make it around here. Sure, there are lots of editors who would take those words and turn them into a charge of personal attack. (Some would call this sentence a "personal attack": You're babbling about semantics.) But I think we need to assume good faith and try to work it out, unless the attack is clearly intended to be hurtful or personal. I'm sorry that you took those comments personally; that was not my intent. But it is inevitable that we will ALL have our writing criticized, if we choose to edit.

Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that you are a serious individual who seeks to be a genuine contributor. The fact that you have not restored all of your edits, (for example, that line about "one of the most dynamic and vibrant regions of the country"), shows me that you are seeking to improve both this article and your own writing, as well as the fact that you are willing to learn from others.

One thing that would have helped me see this earlier would have been if you had provided some outward acknowledgement that you were seeing the validity of other points of view besides your own. For example, I made a point of acknowledging that you were correct about the supposed satellite status of NIU. I acknowledged your findings about its size rankings. In other words, I've let you know at every step whenever you've made a point that has moved my position. We have been at conflict over a fairly large number of (small) issues, and I'm seeking to let you know when you've successfully persuaded me of your correctness on one point or another, which serves two purposes: To acknowledge that we no longer need to discuss that subject, and to let you know that I've listened to you and have been persuaded by you, which shows that I recognize your worth as an editor. Now perhaps you feel I have no such value, though I'm guessing that, on some of the points above to which you have not responded, perhaps you do see my point. Of course, even if you do, you have no obligation to acknowledge it on this page as I am recommending. But after several years of editing, I've found that this practice helps lubricate conflicts between editors and helps us to reach resolution. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Waiting

I really want to be civil and discuss this before making any changes, but in another week I'm going to take your silence as consent to make some changes. If you are just not replying because you're happy with the current state of the article, don't presume my patience is infinite. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

: What exactly are you waiting for me to respond to? I'm happy with the current state of the article. My next task will be finding some new photographs to include in the article. Huskiesfan (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)