Jump to content

Talk:Northeastern University

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

Smith Hall

There used to be a page on Smith Hall, but it has since disappeared. Concidering it's infamy, it should have a mention in the section with all the other buildings.

And if you've been to Smith Hall, you should know at least a few reasons why I use the word infamy... Nezzadar (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you were referring to, and Google turns up no hint, either. Anyway, there is no reference to "infamy" in the article, which is appropriate given that there is no WP:RS. Reify-tech (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't NEU have a Burlington, MA campus? What is the story with that campus?

I thought I remember seeing a sign in Burlington about a Northeastern campus out that way? What is the scoop with that campus? CaribDigita (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Burlington campus was established in the 1960's. It once provided an option for full time freshmen who dodn't want to cummute to Boston, part time MBA students and part time students in the forner University College. As of last May, there are no classes held in Burlington. The campus is being repurposed as a research center (new building under construction: Kostas Hall) and the existing Elliott Hall will be converted to back office administrative offices. http://www.coe.neu.edu/coe/pdfs/Kostas.pdf 

74.99.153.88 (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Tom 11/17/2010[reply]
Given that it lasted several decades, a brief mention of the Burlington campus could be made in the History section. Reify-tech (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a staff member in Northeastern University’s Marketing department. We recommend the following edits to Northeastern’s Wikipedia page, primarily to reflect more up-to-date data and other information.

Major edits proposed by GuardianH

@GuardianH has proposed signification changes to this article. I have an ongoing conversation with them in their talk page for reference, under the section Recent College/University edits. They stated the following:

I removed content on Northeastern Universitybecause they were unsourced, were puff, unnecessarily excessive in detail concerning minor programs, or to remove undue information from the lede. These removals are valid per WP:NOSOURCES, WP:NPOV, WP:PROMOTION and WP:BOLD, among others, and removed MOS:PUFFERY, MOS:EDITORIAL, and WP:UNDUE. If you have a particular issue on an edit, you should seek consensus on the talk page and I will go through the material with you.
Colleges and universities have a problem with WP:ACADEMIC BOOSTERISM because they are often edited by alumni or affiliates (in a WP:COI), which leads to the addition of excessive, promotional, or entirely unsourced material, as was there in the article for Northeastern. My edits to Connecticut College were all self-reverts of my own additions—again, not even close to vandalism. GuardianH (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]

I'm bringing this discussion to the official Northeastern talk page so that we can get consensus in this dispute and the opinions of more editors. Relativebalance (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a significant issue with WP:BOOSTER. Prime examples include:

Northeastern also has a comprehensive study abroad program that spans more than 170 universities and colleges.

Founded in 2009, IDEA is Northeastern University's student-led Venture Accelerator, which provides entrepreneurs, including students, faculty, and alumni in the Northeastern community with the necessary support and educational experience towards developing a business from core concept to launch.

Northeastern co-op students staying in Boston usually benefit from the fact that the city's most prominent industries have numerous offices/headquarters there.

Northeastern also has the notable Dialogues of Civilizations program, which features dozens of one-month-long programs (usually taking place in the summer) where a faculty member will teach a group of students in a region related to the curriculum of a specific class. A sort of "mini" study abroad, each program has an area of focus – for example, the Geneva program focuses on small arms and multilateral negotiations, while the South Africa program is based in non-governmental organizations, and the Seattle program focuses on design thinking. This program is meant to be a communicative experience and an exchange of ideas and cultures.

The historic structure, built in 1911, would influence new campus buildings away from the original gray-brick campus, as exemplified by the extension of the law school's Cargill Hall in the early 1980s.

Through landscape improvements, the university transformed a commuter school campus, once dominated by asphalt, to a greener environment. For example, the Behrakis Health Sciences Center, named for 1957 pharmaceutical alumnus George Behrakis, is a 240,000 square feet (22,000 m2) mixed-use project that included a residence hall and parking garage containing a garden roof, integrates smoothly into the campus.

Ice hockey has been one of Northeastern's most prominent athletic programs.

NU has carved out a quiet, peaceful space in the centrally located Ell Building for the Spiritual Life Center's Sacred Space. The nondenominational Sacred Space, the center's main assembly hall, can be configured with carpets, mats or chairs. It has a distinctive ceiling consisting of 3 hanging domes made of overlapping aluminum tiles with an origami-like effect, warm wood floors and accents, and glass-paneled walls that lean outward slightly, their shape and material giving a sense of openness and volume to the space.

This is not to mention the unsourced information which also puffs the article and remains to be verified. GuardianH (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Follow the normal protocol
@GuardianH The first step in the normal dispute resolution protocol states:
"When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you canrather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.
To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war."
I believe your originally proposed edits are not justified, and the edit summary was not sufficient to explain your bold edits. I disagree with the assertion that they are biased or inaccurate, and all your proposed removals, as far as I can tell, were properly sourced.
These examples you have called out are far less significant than the bold edits you previously made. Is there a medium ground here that fixes these specific examples through addition, without removing content in dispute? Relativebalance (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant policies may be found on WP:NOSOURCES, WP:NPOV, and WP:PROMOTION. What is to be aimed for is

a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

WP:NPOV
What must be avoided, removed, or rewritten in the article is promotional and puff material. A list of peacock words that praise or promote a subject is provided in MOS:PUFFERY.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.

WP:PROMOTION

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

WP:NOSOURCES

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it. An article suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or, if an editor is unsure how best to make a correction, the article may be tagged with an appropriate template[.]

MOS:PUFFERY
GuardianH (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your characterization that there are any instances of "propaganda" or "advertising" in this article, and I do not see any unsourced claims in the material removed by your originally proposed edit. Can you call out specific examples of unsourced claims, propaganda and advertising?
Sourced bias, which from your recent comments appears to be an issue you take with this page, is permissible on Wikipedia (although I disagree with your suggestion that this article is not written from a neutral point of view). Copying from our previous discussion on your talk page, WP:POVDELETION (which further explains the NPOV policy you quote) states:
"It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain ''any'' form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of ''editorial'' bias, but does not forbid ''properly sourced'' bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content."
Again, your previous edits were far more significant than the issues you state here. You removed properly sourced material. I disagree with your categorization that the content you propose removing in your previous edit was biased, puff, or promotional. If you take issue with text you perceive as biased, please call out specific examples and we can get a third opinion per the next step of the dispute resolution guidelines. The examples you call out above are mostly verbs. I am happy to work with you on finding more neutral language for those specific examples. Relativebalance (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you said my original edits did not remove unsourced material; two of them did, and I explicitly said so in the summary. I've linked two here: [1] [2] . By the way, the issue here is editorial bias, that's why I've been emphasizing MOS:PUFFERY and WP:PROMOTION. As you've provided WP:POVDELETION above: The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias[.] GuardianH (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits removed sourced material without justification. The NPOV guidelines state:
Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.
You removed significant, legitimately sourced information. Sourced information is not editorial bias. Editorial bias is sourceless. Please call out specific examples of unsourced information you'd like to remove. Are you proposing that you'd like to remake those two edits without additional unjustified removal of information? If there is no source on the residence hall list, I think that is an acceptable change. Otherwise, the guidelines state: do not removed sourced information from wikipedia solely because it seems biased (i.e. has NPOV issues as you purport) Relativebalance (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What were the citations in the material which I removed in those two edits? From what I saw, there were none.
Editorial bias is not always sourceless; it could elevate or deflate a viewpoint in a source, that's why there are policies like WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. You could add a term in MOS:PUFFERY that is also used in a source, but that source might be a minority viewpoint or be unreliable, so your assertion that Editorial bias is sourceless is wrong in my opinion. GuardianH (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those two edits are potentially agreeable subject to consensus from editors. However, they are part of a group of many edits you made in rapid succession, many of which removed significant amounts of sourced material from both the article lede and body. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeastern_University&diff=1159080076&oldid=1159079759
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeastern_University&diff=1159080800&oldid=1159080699 Relativebalance (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is a violation of WP:POVDELETION guidelines, which state:
"It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain ''any'' form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of ''editorial'' bias, but does not forbid ''properly sourced'' bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content."
Relativebalance (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is yet another example of an edit in which you removed substantial amounts of sourced material from the article, none of which falls under the categories of "puff", promotion, or non-neutral language. This is properly sourced material consistent with other university articles (including with your own contributions to other colleges that are referenced on your talk page, and it is written in a neutral point of view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeastern_University&diff=1159079363&oldid=1158298335 Relativebalance (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are using one reasoning of mine — namely, to remove puff material — and extending it to all of my edits, which completely misses the ball. As per my own edit summaries, each edit is done for a different reason — that's why I perform individual edits in the first place in order to address certain issues. My edit summary in that states cleanup lede; this is body material. The problem wasn't a MOS:PUFFERY issue, it was a WP:UNDUE issue, hence the removal. This is not even mentioning that the lede was — and is — larger than what it should be for the length of the article. GuardianH (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is subject to debate, furthermore, you did not move the material to the body. You removed sourced material that was written in a neutral tone of view for a debatable and controversial reason. That is why I have opened a discussion on this talk page and a DRN on this subject here.
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Northeastern University
I disagree with your characterization that "this is body material", which is arbitrary and subjective. Moreover, WP:UNDUE states in multiple places material that is not neutral should not be outright removed if it is sourced. Regardless, your removals, especially the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeastern_University&diff=1159079363&oldid=1158298335
are entirely neutral and not WP:UNDUE in my opinion. Relativebalance (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a dispute resolution notice for a third party to weigh in on this debate @GuardianH
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Northeastern University Relativebalance (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with what you put in the dispute overview. You state that I want to remove a significant amount of sourced content from the article due to perceived bias, yet I've repeatedly said my original edits concerned wanting to remove completely unsourced information; again, I linked two of them above. GuardianH (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your original edits are publicly available to see in the history of the Northeastern article. They are far more extensive than the innocuous two linked, and they remove properly sourced information. I reference such edits in the above comment. Relativebalance (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said that "I do not see any unsourced claims in the material removed by your originally proposed edit". Given you reverted the entirety of my original edits to the page, that's why I addressed these. If they were so innocuous, then why did you remove them in the first place? GuardianH (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am disputing them, in addition to these harmful edits. Being innocuous does not mean they should be made permanent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeastern_University&diff=1159080076&oldid=1159079759
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeastern_University&diff=1159080800&oldid=1159080699
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeastern_University&diff=1159079363&oldid=1158298335
Relativebalance (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your original contention that I do not see any unsourced claims in the material removed by your originally proposed edit was wrong, as per the whole point of my mentioning of those two edits. Being innocuous does not mean they should be made permanent — nor does it mean automatic grounds for reversion, as you did.
You keep stressing the proper sourcing and verifiability of material; verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, per WP:ONUS. This whole conversation is a merry-go-round of rebuttals until either or us get any consensus. It's not worth my time or yours to keep up commenting. GuardianH (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is much well-sourced, neutrally written, good material that you removed from this article in your rapid fire group of edits, among which are the three I linked directly above. I reverted the lot because the above three make it clear the edits were not made according to the rules, none were constructive in my opinion, and there should be a consensus should be reached before inclusion of any. You're right however, I look forward to the outcome of the DRN. If you truly believe this is a legitimately justifiable edit, you and I will never reach consensus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeastern_University&diff=1159079363&oldid=1158298335
Relativebalance (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Booster tag

@Relativebalance removed the booster tag in the article, reverting my addition of it. Since there is substantial boosterism in the article that has yet to be removed, I am reinstating the tag for readers. GuardianH (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is also one or more subjective terms, I've also added Template:Peacock. GuardianH (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GuardianH Again, per our above discussion, I disagree with your characterization that this article contains boosterism. I conceded from your earlier examples that there exists subjective terminology, so I will leave that tag. Given that you have not justified the addition of the boosterism tag publicly, I ask that you do so now: please provide explicit examples of boosterism in this article. I am removing the tag for the time being given the lack of justification. Relativebalance (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subjective terminology (MOS:PUFFERY terms) promotes the subject in a positive manner and embellishes its reputation — puffery is boosterism. Like WP:BOOSTER (essay) says, it makes it so content reads like an admissions brochure. Both tags are warranted.
As you mentioned, there is no consensus to make any definitive changes unless other editors weigh in. @ElKevbo and @Whoisjohngalt might be willing to comment since they edited the article previously concerning booster content. GuardianH (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about your calling out specific editors for opinions. They are welcome to join in the discussion, but I prefer to proceed through the normal, stated, dispute resolution process of wikipedia:
Wikipedia:Third opinion
"This process is neither mandatory nor binding. Rather, it is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal mechanism through which either of two editors currently in dispute can request an opinion from an uninvolved third editor."
I don't think these two editors qualify as "uninvolved" due to your assertion that they are both involved and share in your opinion. Relativebalance (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skdb could weigh in perhaps then; they edit education articles aswell and are familiar with the relevant policies. GuardianH (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll jump in: The tags should be restored pending discussion and consensus. That's the very nature of maintenance tags. If the tags have a specific reason, and if that reason isn't trivially unsound, they should be maintained until consensus on their appropriateness is attained. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Relativebalance Per @Red-tailed hawk's comment, I will restore the original tag(s) since no consensus has been reached. GuardianH (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on current tags, major proposed edits to Northeastern University article.

On the beginning of June 8th, 2023, the state of the Northeastern university article corresponded with the following version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeastern_University&oldid=1158298335

That day, user GuardianH made a series of thirteen edits, significantly refactoring the article with extensive removals and new tags indicating the presence of academic boosterism and bias. Afterwards, the state of the article corresponded with the following version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeastern_University&oldid=1159227225


The edits have been reverted pending consensus. To resolve the ongoing dispute, I am seeking comments on:

1) Whether these proposed edits should be applied to the article. 2) Whether the tags (which are currently active) are necessary.

I have discussed them at length with the proposer on the article talk page: Talk:Northeastern University#Major edits proposed by GuardianH and have opened a DNR on the subject here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Northeastern University

Thank you, Relativebalance. 04:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Relativebalance (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northeastern_University&oldid=1160055599"