Talk:Northeastern University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Southern Campus[edit]

I've started the Southern Campus section. There's a ton of conflicting information online about the opening dates of the Davenport/780 buildings, and the only one I can recall is Coventry's and the Squashbuster's opening in 2003. If anyone has anything else to add to this section (or a picture) that'd be great.

The next area of campus I'll be doing is probably going to be the Freshman Quad area (Stetson/Speare/White). It'll probably be necessary to split the campus section off at some point, so we should probably discuss if we should seperate out just the residence halls, or the whole campus section.

How about some pics of campus before you do that? We need more pics.

How about signing your posts? :) Dalau2 (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several buildings that have been opened on campus in the past few years that should be included in the campus description - Alumni Center (2006), Behrakis Health Sciences Center (2002), Egan Research Center (1996), Marino Recreation Center (1996), and Shillman Hall (1995). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnC128 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Alumni list out of hand[edit]

Please move the bulk of the alumni into a new article. The list currently included in this article is way, way too long. --ElKevbo 02:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks like someone cut out the redlinks. I think it's pretty clear there were a ton of NN people on there, and I think it's more sizable now. Lordwow 12:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It's better but still much too long, IMHO. --ElKevbo 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The "Notable alumni" section of the article is actually a partial list of people in List of Northeastern University people. These two separate lists are difficult to maintain, especially to make sure they remain consistent. And what criteria are used to put a person on the shorter list? I propose to modify the "Notable alumni" section so that introductory text describes the types of alumni and the fields in which they exist, and then link to List of Northeastern University people. This would be similar to other university articles, see UCLA and University of Rochester, for example. I will, of course, ensure that anyone on the list in this article is also on the linked-to list. Comments? Truthanado (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
There exists an alumni page, which I will switch out with the "List of Northeastern University People while I work on the list. Nezzadar (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NEUBanner.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:NEUBanner.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Fanning Alumni?[edit]

Shawn Fanning never graduated from Northeastern, in fact he left after his first semester of freshman year, should his name still be listed here? Kevinebaugh (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Alumni means "former students", not just graduates. [1] So, yes. - Keith D. Tyler 06:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

NU, not NEU?[edit]

2008-09 Discussion[edit]

I have reverted all NEUs to NUs. The university is not known by any official standard or publication by NEU. The only reference to NEU is the school's website (http://www.neu.edu), which has (in the last year) been changed to forward to http://www.northeastern.edu due to the misconception that the school is called NEU.

Additionally, the changes to NEU altered official names to incorrect names such as NU Libraries and NU Corporation, both of which, in all their official literature, refer to themselves as "NU _____" and not "NEU ________."

  • I agree, that is the case. Jheiv (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the change. I guess I was a bit too overzealous in my edits. Truthanado (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted in a previous talk section, Northeastern is not also known as NEU, nor is it abbreviated NEU. Northeastern is one word, not two -- it is not North Eastern University, but Northeastern. Also as stated earlier, the only remnant of NEU is the antiquated domain name neu.edu that now forwards to northeastern.edu in almost all cases. Any edits referring to Northeastern as NEU or implying that NEU is an abbreviation should be reverted. Jheiv (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We have had this discussion before. Although "NU" is preferred, the abbreviation "NEU" is still used in some contexts, has historical significance, and it is incorrect to completely remove it from the article. "NEU" avoids confusion with National University (http://www.nu.edu). Northeastern's home page of http://www.northeastern.edu is labeled neuhome. Feel free to describe "NEU"'s limitations, but please do not completely remove it. Truthanado (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I like that compromise -- I'll add a note near where it was -- feel free to edit it. Jheiv (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Jhiev, that I didn't notice this right away, but I'll add my two cents as well as a defence for my misunderstanding: the argument presented here to remove all references of NEU from Northeastern's Wikipedia article seems silly and flawed to me, mainly because Wikipedia isn't a forum for promoting official university policy. The requirement that the alternate name reflect official policy, forgetting history and convention, neither improves Wikipedia, conforms to guidelines, nor presents an NPOV. Additionally, a Google search for "NEU" turns up the www.northeastern.edu website, Northeastern's continuing education website, mathematics department, business administration site, and computer and information science site, at the least (see here). Perhaps Google simple hasn't cached the change from "neu" to "northeastern" yet, but that doesn't mean Northeastern can never again be referred to by the public as NEU, and I'd argue that it's the public reference point that holds more weight than the official policy in this case. Naming conventions for university articles on Wikipedia already attest to this. The lead could easily read Northeastern University (NU or NEU) and still be within reason; better reason, I'd argue, than catering to official policy shifts. If I have traditionally referred to Northeastern as NEU and my Google search turns up hits for it (official ones, tellingly), why isn't it acceptable for it to be used on Wikipedia as one of two abbreviated nicknames? --Aepoutre (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Two threads on the same topic, eh? Must be more controversial than I even suspected. See my comment above, as I oppose the current pussyfooting method currently in use. --Aepoutre (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Didn't notice your note on the talk page before I made edits that I think are a compromise. The idea is that, while Northeastern once certainly referred to itself as NEU, recently it has dropped all official references to simply NU. I understand the historical value, and the value of identification / reference, but I think it should be important not to perpetuate a misnomer. To that end, I tried another compromise. Should have suggested this here first though, sorry.Jheiv (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't know how I didn't notice this before, but NEU redirects to Northeastern University! How can we get by with what I've noticed one anonymous editor referred to as "awkward wording" when NEU is clearly associated with the University? Jheiv, as the "defender" of a dubious consensus, you still haven't responded to my last comment on your talk page. I think it deserves a response, considering, as I've already implied, I can't find any record of a consensus (If I've just not looked hard enough, let me know, please!). --Aepoutre (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The page once read simply NU. Then an editor challenged me, saying the old name NEU is important to include for historical reasons. I agreed, I had overlooked that in my edit. The result was to change it to what I have admitted I thought was obtuse wording. However, the point was to get across that NEU is being/ has been phased out. The observant (and ultimately correct) user, Truthanado noted on my talk page that they thought the edit to its current phrasing was "succinct and well said". Whatever phrasing is used, in my opinion, first and foremost needs to accurately reflect what is the abbreviation of the school (NU) and also indicate what has been historically accepted / used (NEU) as long as it is mentioned as such. To put the two on equal footing seems confusing. Your distinction between what the content of an article is and what the article is named seems unpersuasive. The contention is in the content, not the article name -- so your examples of Ohio State University and The College of William & Mary show that the content of the articles reflect the actual, formal name. I would agree that the language might be considered awkward or obtuse, but certainly not "dubious". There seems to have been a consensus reached about the current phrasing, but you are welcome to suggest modifications or even change the page to what you think the wording should be. In my opinion, however, the phrasing needs to indicate that NEU has been / is being phased out as an acceptable acronym. jheiv (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, how does this new one look? It pays homage to NEU, but is sure to distinguish between a colloquial abbreviation and the official. Let me know if you think it gets the job done. Thanks for the reply; I was beginning to wonder if you're one of those editors with a life outside Wikipedia or something. --Aepoutre (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I think for the time being this phrasing is fine. I think the topic could/should be re-visited sometime in the future to determine whether NEU is still applicable or deserving of such ... "prominence"?. In the mean time, I can live with it. jheiv (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop the presses people. Northeastern is too called NEU, formally and informally. Not often, but still often enough. For example, all university mail is name@neu.edu or name@husky.neu.edu. We use NEU to distinguish between Northeastern and all the other N schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezzadar (talkcontribs) 00:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

2010 Comment[edit]

Some further information: the student portal is officially known as MyNEU, so both names are definitely still in official use 71.198.89.13 (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

2014 Discussion[edit]

I'm a neighbor, and I see "NEU" constantly. I am typically SURPRISED to see Northeastern University in Boston referred to as NU, though some insist upon it. I think that reverting to NEU may be controversial but surely not indefensible. MaynardClark (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm local too and rarely see NEU. Almost all sources (save for the myNEU portal: http://myneu.neu.edu/cp/home/displaylogin) use NU. Do you have any sources for current expanded usage of NEU? If not, we should consider this matter closed per the discussion above. Thkie (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, you see that the 'myNEU' is a subdomain of neu.edu, so the University agrees that NEU.edu is in use, lthough it forwards to Northeastern.edu.
  • Various websites refer to Northestern University as NEU (e.g. Northeastern University 'Greek Life', but the logo (on hats, T-shirts, and other paraphernalia) seems now to be only the University's name.
  • I'm not invested in this, but if I were asked to comment from a distance, I would say that a wholesale shift in either direction would have been premature. Thus, the matter was not close when one editor decided to make that wholesale 'edit'! 14:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that I'm invested in the matter either or that "one editor decided" anything. This is my first time chiming in on the subject but this conversation dates back well over 5 years. There was a time the university used NU and NEU interchangeably but that ended sometime just after 2000 (based on my experiences/memories). I agree there are some legacy references to NEU and it is still used in some contexts, especially by 3rd parties or unofficial sources (example: URL for http://neu.uloop.com/ has NEU, however all the references on the underlying pages read NU) but I don't think its fair in the context of this article to list NEU as an abbreviation outside of a historical context. I will admit these views are my own and not authoritative and welcome further discussion. Thkie (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't even know about the discussion going on here, I just saw that "NEU" was missing and added it in. Anyway, here is the situation as I see it (as a student at Northeastern, I may be biased): "NU" seems to be the official abbreviation, but informally people only use "NEU". While http://www.neu.edu/ redirects to http://www.northeastern.edu/ (the public-facing website), neu.edu is still used as the domain for all internal purposes, such as the MyNEU portal, course websites, both student and faculty email, and many other things. This is not in itself evidence of anything, but I think it may be the driving force behind the usage of "NEU" by students/faculty/etc. For evidence that usage exists, see this book, this website, these google searches, etc. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 14:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Good point - I mentioned myNEU but had forgotten about the more obvious one: email addresses. I guess email addresses can be explained as "just a url" but myNEU is literally the name of something that has "NEU" in it. Until they change stuff like this, I think NEU has to be acknowledged even if its the secondary abbreviation. -KaJunl (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

So it looks like Northeastern President Joseph Aoun has finally settled this debate declaring both NU and NEU acceptable[1]. Thkie (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Although, the plot thickens: he prefers NU over NEU[2]. Thkie (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, the official Northeastern twitter account says its either NU or Northeastern.[3] So much for closure. Thkie (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
But clearly this proves that people do use NEU, even if it is unofficial. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 15:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm still firmly in the NU camp with concessions that NEU is acceptable from a historical standpoint or when trying to differentiate from other NU schools. That said, based on the input from the official NU Twitter account and the University President, I won't fight the inclusion on NEU on the page, although I think NU should be the primary abbreviation. Should go without saying, but I'll also note I only speak for myself-- I'd be interested to hear from more editors before we make any more changes to the page on the subject. Thkie (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Wikitiki89 - we should acknowledge that it's something that's widely used. Yes, NU is now the "official" one but there are plenty of NEU references that exist and are used regularly by students and faculty. -KaJunl (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Although neu.edu redirects, there is still "myNEU" (myneu.com, or myneu.neu.edu) which is the site used for things like registering for classes, checking transcripts, checking grades, evaluating professors, accessing different university resources including financial aid, etc. If it's exclusively NU and not NEU, wouldn't they rename that? I definitely get the impression that the school leans more towards NU than NEU, but I think NEU is still worth mentioning in the article's first line along with NU. -KaJunl (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Newspaper[edit]

Can someone please clarify, referencing sources, the campus newspaper? Judging by their websites, the one that has been recently added doesn't appear to be specific to the campus while the one removed from article does. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The newspaper going independent, and in the process, changing its name. This article may provide some insight: The News goes independent Jheiv (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact, I just noticed that www.nu-news.com redirects to www.huntington-news.com Jheiv (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

School of Engineering Technology[edit]

Just to note the School of Engineering Technology will have its daytime program shut down after the class of 2010.

Library Facilities?[edit]

Perhaps at the time it was built the Snell Library was the largest library in Boston, but is that currently verifiable? I am sure Boston Public is bigger, and what about the recently-expanded Baker Library at Harvard Business School or the Pardee Library at BU? Does anyone know the answer to this?

m12 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Northeastern has always referred to Snell Library as the largest academic library in Boston. BPL is not an academic library. Pardee library at BU is the School of Management Library. Not sure about Baker at Harvard Business School. Tom Mc

Beyond that, "largest" in which sense? Most books? Most square footage?  Ravenswing  09:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WHO at Northeastern refers to it as the largest academic library? Source, please? And isn't the School of Management Library also an academic library? It's obviously not the biggest in number of books, that's easy to check. Could be square footage, but again, where's the source?m12 (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've actually never heard it referred to as such, but at least two [2] [3] NU web pages makes this claim:
Our faculty researchers and their student collaborators enjoy access to the largest academic library in Boston, and to some of the most advanced research facilities and institutes in the area, both on campus and in greater Boston.
and
Northeastern University offers a wealth of other resources for CCIS students: 11 undergraduate schools and colleges; 10 graduate and professional schools; brand-new research and recreation complexes; Snell Library, the largest academic library in Boston; the Curry Student Center; and the cultural and geographic diversity of the student body. Students attend Northeastern from all fifty U.S. states and more than one hundred countries.
jheiv (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Northeastern is the largest academic library in Boston. Technically Harvard and MIT have a larger library than Northeastern University, but they are in CambridgeDaoserena (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Branding[edit]

Northeastern has its own font: http://www.neu.edu/toolkit/brandstandards/typography.html -- Also, I hear that it has its own Pantone color or mix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E is for Ian (talkcontribs) 18:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite possible. If you can find a "visual standards guide" or something, that'd be excellent. It's fairly easy to convert pantone to hex. --Aepoutre (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The colors are here, although I'm afraid I'm not sure what to do with it. jheiv (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I made the change in the infobox, not sure I'm real happy with it (it looks the best) though... jheiv (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Smith Hall[edit]

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)

Corruption in article[edit]

The article was probably written by a NU booster or employee, because it advertising things such as NU being a "leader in interdisciplinary research, urban engagement, and the integration of classroom learning with real-world experience", and then giving the source as the school's website itself, which is biased and subjective for obvious reasons. This article is essentially an advertisement, rather than a description, of Northeastern University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.175.178 (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


Yeah I saw that today. That is pretty hilarious that is the first thing in the article. I reworded it so it is less embarrassing for Northeastern.

92.151.164.104 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


I agree, subjectivity is too prominent in this article. Another example I found, "Northeastern's campus is something of an urban oddity; despite its location in central Boston, Northeastern is home to a significant amount of green open space and quads". The citation links to an archive of an old campus tour. I would prefer to see this article written about "green space" or "quads" on campus. To claim it is an oddity in the city is too subjective and not necessarily accurate. Wentworth Institute of Technology probably has the same amount of green open space as Northeastern University, proving this inaccuracy. I think it should say something along the lines of, "Centennial Common, Krentzman Quad, and West Village quad provide functional green spaces within the urban campus." --JJJJJJJ19 (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

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


Flawed Interpretation of National Research Council Rankings[edit]

The rankings shown here from the NRC are not only uncited, they are actually all wrong. For example, Northeastern is not ranked 35th in History. NRC assesses schools according to five different criteria, one of which (S-rank) states a 95% confidence interval for History from 35 to 67. That means it is highly likely that Northeastern History is between the 35th best and 67th best history department; this is not the same as saying it is ranked 35th. This is probably better illustrated by the fact that 16 schools are ranked in the "top 10" by this flawed interpretation. I would update it with the "true" rankings, but I believe NRC specifically constructed its rankings in this way to preclude an ordered list from being constructed. We should remove these rankings and instead add a little rankings box like the one seen on the page of Boston University.

http://chronicle.com/article/NRC-Rankings-Overview-History/124736/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleMage (talkcontribs) 03:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the incorrect rankings. It would still be useful to add that little box though. 129.10.245.160 (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Huntington ymca.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Huntington ymca.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Promotionalism, etc.[edit]

I removed a good deal of pervasive promotionalism, excess verbiage, and over-specific details about the gym equipment and the parking lots and the tram stops and the individual fast food facilities. I asked for specific citations for specific awards. There's more to do. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

Can anyone add pictures of the newer buildings? The pictures don't seem very representative of campus today, but rather what campus looked like ten years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.14.76 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Faculty[edit]

The faculty section needs to be expanded and backed with proper citations. It currently states "faculty members have garnered national and international acclaim for their achievements in teaching and research" without any specific instances of achievement. I think it would be better to take this out and instead list the number of faculty and talk about individual faculty member's contributions. For example, if any professors are Nobel prize winners or MacArthur Fellows, this should be added and cited. Other notable attributes of faculty members should be added here such as notable prior work, inventions, and humanitarian work. This would combat the advertisement like tone of the current article. --JJJJJJJ19 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC) JJJJJJJ19 (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Northeastern "gamed the ratings system" reference[edit]

I don't want to get into an edit war on this one. Under 'Rankings' there is the following line at present: "However, it was reported that Northeastern's rapid rise in this ranking was because it "gamed" the college ranking methodology." The reference is a Boston Magazine article which came out on October 26 of this year. It's my belief that this isn't an neutral claim and thus should not be included. Weelilbit (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Boston Magazine has an ax to grind when it quotes a former president of Northeastern, Richard Freeland, as saying “There’s no question that the system invites gaming.... We made a systematic effort to influence [the outcome].”? Unless it can be shown he was misquoted, I'd say this is a valid claim which should stay in the article. Contributor321 (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a "neutral claim;" it has to come from a reliable source. WP:NPOV only applies to Wikipedia articles, not to sources cited in them.
Incidentally, it's one of the worst kept secrets in academia that many colleges and universities use all sorts of tricks, ethical and unethical, to make themselves look as good as possible in some of the prevalent ranking systems. ElKevbo (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that they have an axe to grind, just that not every related media article is relevant to the Wikipedia article. One could easily summarize every related media article in the Wiki article, but it's not always relevant. Weelilbit (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so you're making an argument that we're giving undue weight to this source and the related statement? That's a fair point and I would agree with you if we had more than one sentence devoted to this. However, I think that one brief sentence is ok since the source appears to be reliable, the material we're using from the source is completely on-topic and provides interesting information useful for readers, and the quote is from a former president of the university. ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence at issue is not a neutral claim and thus should not be included in the article. I was surprised to find it in a Wikipedia article. I am going to delete it. Thanks for the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.14.76 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No, you've begun an edit war to remove a statement that multiple editors agree should remain. You don't own this article and you don't get to personally decide what stays and what goes. If you have an argument to present why this reliable source that is neutrally described should be removed then make the argument. That the claim itself is negative is irrelevant; WP:N only applies to what we write in Wikipedia, not the sources we cite. ElKevbo (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I see multiple editors also claiming that this sentence should be removed, which I have to agree with. Feel free to include a reliable reason for why it should be included. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.14.76 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
One other editor raised the question to which two editors - including me - responded. The original objection was that "this isn't an neutral claim" which is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as "the original source isn't neutral" which isn't a valid claim since there is no requirement whatsoever that sources be neutral. Or it can be interpreted as "the description of the source isn't neutral" which is a statement that doesn't seem correct to me but one to which I have responded by ensuring that the claim is clearly attributed to the original author and publication.
The source is reliable, the description is neutral, and the material is unquestionably relevant to this topic. On what grounds are you arguing that this material and its source should be excluded? ElKevbo (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is the way the sentence was worded. The description was certainly not neutral it was unquestionably biased. These types of attacks are common, but they have no place in a neutral Wikipedia article. For example, you don't see the pages for Baylor, Claremont McKenna or Iona College having a discussion of "gaming", even though the New York Times put out an article on the subject. Let's not begin entering in biased claims in a neutral Wikipedia article.
I see the way you tried to revise the sentence. I made a few edits and added citations for reference. Please keep all edits neutral and unbiased in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.14.76 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Northeastern CBA[edit]

In the rankings section, there is discussion about Northeastern's CBA students consistently winning competitions. I think that this should say D'Amore-McKim, not CBA. Although the sentence in general is flagged as needing citation. -KaJunl (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Duplicating information[edit]

An editor has been insisting the following passage into Northeastern_University#Rankings:

Some have argued that Northeastern’s recent rise in the rankings shows that the university has “cracked the code” to academic rankings, while others have suggested that it has figured out how to “game the system."

That exact quote, however, is already in Northeastern_University#History. So is there a reason to duplicate the same text verbatim? It might also be nice to expand on it to explain what is meant by gaming the system/cracking the code, but that should be in only one of the two sections. Calidum T|C 04:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Northeastern University. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 19:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)