Talk:New York University/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Verifiability

In fact, Cornell University already has opened a medical campus in Qatar, making it the "first of its kind." If NYU's campus is to be the "first of its kind," the author ought to specify exactly what that "kind" is, or else this needs to be removed until further evidence is available. User:Neotap 18 July 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 12:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Public transit

Surely the public transit section in the template box thing can be expanded to be more comprehensive. --Jonathan Williams 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing

Genuine Nobel Prizes won by NYU: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.203 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, please read the explicit description in big letters on the page that you linked to. According to that description, the list constitutes 'the universities, research institutions or companies' that 'Nobel Laureates were affiliated with at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement'. It is not a list of institutions that won 'genuine' Nobel Prizes (as opposed to fake ones?). ;)

Second of all, if what your recent comments are intending to suggest is that any school may be only 'mediocre' if it has three or fewer such Nobel Prize affiliations listed on the page you linked to, then fine - that's one point of view, regardless of whether you actually hold it or not. So, according to you, would Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, and a myriad of other schools across the globe that are commonly considered 'more than mediocre' - possibly be considered 'less than mediocre' schools to you if they don't have any such Nobel Prize affiliations according to that list, or, at most, one?

Third of all, it seems that your comments are serving more to vent rather than really contribute in any meaningful way to the development of the article. Please be reminded that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. --Schiez (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I edited the whole New York University article on Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think.

Omnis7

Criticism

Why is it that NYU (along with all the colleges) does not have a criticism section? Pretty much all the other articles on many different subjects have criticisms but the articles on colleges do not. It does not feel objective and always puts the school in a positive light instead of showing both sides of the story. By not including criticisms, I feel it is very misleading to people who may later on find out that NYU has some negativities that they did not know of beforehand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.42.127 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 25 April 2007

One, new items for discussion on the talk page should go at the bottom of the page and not at the top, and this can be easily (and automatically) done by simply clicking on the + next to edit this page on all wiki talk pages. But I lowered this section to its appropriate place for you.

Two, a quick peep at the table of contents on this talk page alludes to an already extant section on Criticism(s). This anonymous user did not get a very helpful response, but if I may I will tell you that any and all criticisms you find pertinent to any information with regards to New York University or any article on wikipedia can be added -- provided they are wholly verifiable and not original research. So a criticism such as "NYU is too expensive/doesn't have D-1 sports/it seems like all the guys are gay" is not welcome on this page. However, if you have a criticism such as NYU doesn't have an Engineering school, or a certain department is a bit lacking in comparison to other peer schools and there is some published documentation that corroborates your criticisms, then it is more than welcome to be added to this or any wikipedia page. JesseRafe 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh alright sorry about that. The thing is, I don't know any books that would actually have criticisms abou NYU although I've heard from many people about how NYU hardly gives any financial aid, have TAs many of the time instead of real professors etc etc. Still, I don't have a reputable source so I wouldn't be able to put that there. Is that why none of the colleges have criticisms (because there aren't any reputable sources criticizing it?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.42.127 (talk • contribs) 21:06, April 25, 2007

No problem, it happens to all of us just starting out. Also try to remember to "sign" each discussion item with four tildes "~~~~" which will show your name (or IP address) and the time you wrote it. And if you want to indent responses to make the flow of the conversation easier to follow, add a colon to the beginning of the first sentence.

It doesn't have to be a book per se, as you can see most articles on wikipedia cite relevant, reliable websites. Mostly only the genuinely "scholarly" articles cite proper books, like history-type prototypical encyclopedia articles. For an article on NYU a source such as the US News and World Report's rankings is an adequate source. Yes, it is true that NYU gives poor financial aid and has many TAs -- but these are subjective. "Not having enough TAs" is an opinion, however, "Having less TAs teaching per capita than X" would be a fact, but the fact that X and NYU are (or ought to be) compared, is, again, subjective. If you're interested try to follow the article and talk page on NetFlix. That discussion illustrates rather well the difficulties in properly criticizing an institution, which is different than criticism of a public figure or a work of art -- things which are expected to be criticized and as such it is easier to document the criticism.JesseRafe 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nyuseal.gif

Image:Nyuseal.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Need better pictures

Come on, this is New York City. I'm sure you can find more aesthetically-pleasing pictures of the campus.--143.58.196.120 14:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

This article has some good information, but it is missing crucial citations (beyond the "citation needed" tags) and some sections of the article need to be slightly revised.

• The following sections need more citations (some have none): History, Student life, Athletics, NYU faculty and alumni
• The lead needs to be a standalone summary of the article per WP:LEAD (please read).
• The "Cultural setting" section could probably be reduced; right now, it seems like a list of the famous people who lived in Greenwich Village. It would be a good idea to either relate those people to the university or simply cut much of that.
• The beginning of the "Academics" section is loaded with rankings. I would use those rankings when discussing the schools themselves.
• The "Schools and colleges" section does not describe any of them. A few paragraphs would be helpful, rather than simply a list of names.
• I would suggest adding more on the university's budget and fundraising. Although this is not the most exciting element of a university for students, it is vital to a university's livelihood and often a matter of hot dispute. Also, any recent major gifts should probably be listed.
• The most prominent prose problems were: repetitive diction, awkward syntax and wordiness.
• The "NYU in film and literature" section is a trivia section (see WP:TRIVIA). It should be moved to another, more appropriate, page OR made into coherent paragraphs OR integrated into the article.
• A few more images might not be amiss, such as Washington Square Arch, since it is associated with NYU.
• As a graduate student myself, I was disappointed not to see any mention of NYU's labor disputes. They made national news, so I thought they might be mentioned (especially when the suicides were). Perhaps this is my own bias, though. :)

If you have any questions about this review, please feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Awadewit | talk 12:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image explosion

I'm thinking we're getting a little too enthusiastic with the images - the campus and sports sections are terribly cluttered now with the multiple left and right-hand side images. Perhaps we should prioritize which to include, or create a {{gallery}} instead? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should prioritize and make the images flow better. I am simply including better images per the Good Article nomination comments. Also, using featured university articles like Michigan State University should serve as indicators of quantity and quality of images. -- Noetic Sage 03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Nice job. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Princeton Review Rankings

They have no methodology; most are based on self-selecting surveys. why are we using them? i am specifically referring to the "dream school" ranking. what does this mean? and how is it measured? obviously not by yield, one of the best measures of a school's popularity and desirability among admitted students, since NYU's is relatively low and no where near the top of the list.

and if we are going to use Princeton Review rankings, even though they are unscientific, we need to use all of the rankings that the company has on NYU, not just the ones that reflect favorably on the school.

i am tired of college and university articles that read like admissions literature.

those other rankings are as follows:

#8	Long Lines and Red Tape
#14	Professors Make Themselves Scarce	
#1	Students Dissatisfied with Financial Aid	
#3	Gay Community Accepted	
#11	Intercollegiate Sports Unpopular or Nonexistent	
#5	Nobody Plays Intramural Sports	
#7	Dodgeball Targets	
#10	Great College Towns	

i will be adding them in soon, unless we just exclude Princeton Review rankings entirely, which i think would be best. please do not remove the new rankings.

34african34 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)34african34

Are the other rankings relavent to an encylopedic article? Perhaps the financial aid and gay community ones. The others, not so much. RogueNinja_talk 17:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The other rankings can be worked in as well. They are all related to NYU-the focus of this article. This article has already ceased to be an "encyclopedic" article. An encyclopedic article about NYU would state its location, constituent schools, founding date, and that's about it. It would probably be about one to two paragraphs long. The other rankings are as relevant or perhaps more relevant than the fact that the Skirball Center hosted the recording for the third season finale of the Apprentice, just to name one random piece of information in this article.34african34 (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)34african34

Dream school vs. attending

I just made this removal for the 2nd time (I think). These are two separate and unrelated facts: (a) a large number of people consider NYU their "dream school"; and (b) only 37% of those admitted decide to attend. There is no necessary relationship between the two, thus no "despite". The only way "despite" would be appropriate is if we knew for a fact that of those who applied, this was their "dream school" and then they got in, and then they chose not to attend. For all we know, a million people consider NYU their dream school, but never even apply (no hope of getting in, can't afford, etc). So the ultimate statistic on who choose to enroll is unrelated. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Of course, those million people could still apply, but not be accepted. It doesn't say that NYU accepts all its applicants and only accept 37% - that'd be what the "despite" would be appropriate. If NYU offers admission to 20% of applicants that means 80% didn't go to "their dream school", and if only 37% of them accept, then only 7.5% of those applied attend. JesseRafe (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But one would think that if NYU was such a "Dream School" that all of the people who were accepted would attend, and make all the sacrifices necessary. Yield measures the desirability of schools, and this Princeton Review rankings claims to do the same. While the PR ranking says that NYU is the most desirable school in the nation, the yield says otherwise, hence the usage of the word "despite." I was just trying to tell both sides of the story, something that any unbiased source of information should try to do. The NYU yield provides information that is counter-factual to this silly ranking and that is hard information, unlike the PR ranking. The two pieces of information, even though they might not measure the same thing as you said, contrast, and one sheds light on the other. If we look at yields to determine desirability of colleges, we get schools like Harvard and Yale being the most desirable, and that seems to be a more believable conclusion than NYU. But, alas, obviously the only editors who view this page frequently are going to be NYU people who have unconditional positive regard for the school, and therefore I am pushed out my sheer mob rule. Things like this are what make Wikipedia so great.34african34 (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)34african34

First, and above all, assume good faith with your fellow editors. Second, you have a number of logical fallacies in your argument above. For example, "But one would think that if NYU was such a "Dream School" that all of the people who were accepted would attend, and make all the sacrifices necessary." No. that would only be true if all the people who were accepted also describe NYU as their dream school. Further, NYU would have to be their only dream school. Neither of which is likely the case, and certainly neither of which has been verified here. There really is no logic to connect the two statistics. (Perhaps there is value in listing them separately). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Throwing around the term "logical fallacies" here is just a way of de-legitimizing my argument without truly engaging it. Your arguments also have "logical fallacies." The term "dream school" implies that NYU would be a first choice, and therefore there cannot be more than one "dream school" as you said. A candidate can only have one first choice school, or else it would not be his or her first choice at all. The problem here is that it is really unclear what the term "dream school" really means. Because of that including the "dream school" ranking comes down to an attempt to contribute to the positive notions of NYU's prestige/standing as a good school, without adding information of any substance. Nonetheless, I give up on the issue.152.23.82.62 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)34african34

(I'm presuming the IP edit was also by 34African34). You said: "The term "dream school" implies that NYU would be a first choice, and therefore there cannot be more than one "dream school"". No, that's not necessarily the case. Regardless, using the connection "despite" only applies if those who were accepted but decided not to attend also were those who described NYU as their "dream school". Like I noted above, there might be good reason to include both pieces of data, just not connected in such a way. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was Do Not Merge into New York University. It has been on the table for a month and the nominator has removed the claim of non-notability. —Noetic Sage 04:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose a merger of Student Senators Council into this article. The Student Senators Council article suffers from WP:Original Research and as campus organization, it generally fails WP:Notability.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I created this article, so I may suffer from conflict of interest, however the article definitely satisfies the general notability guideline. It has five reliable references, three of which are secondary to NYU itself. If there is original research, then just remove it. I'm not sure which part of the article fails this guideline, but feel free to remove anything that is considered OR.—Noetic Sage 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Noeticsage - It satisfies general notability guideline, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --67.80.29.235 (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Academy Award alumni

This section is for the current debate over the source in the lead and further down the page that claims that NYU has more alumni Academy Award winners than any other university. Until this source is contradicted by another source I believe the information should stay (despite obvious problems with the source that it is NYU-based). The IP address that keeps reverting the page is suggesting that the source is incorrect through original research, which is not acceptable.—Noetic Sage 02:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

- Seriously, It's not that hard to do the research. The University of Southern California has 78 Academy Awards. http://cinema.usc.edu/alumni/alumni-history/awards/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.246.136 (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This article on NYU needs significant revisions

Generally speaking, the wriitng for this article is poor and uninformed. Without a major re-write, the changes I made were necessary and the article is only slightly better. I suggest that you not revert back to 2008 format. I doubt that anyone that contributed to the 2008 format actually graduated from NYU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertGallatin (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Kimmel Operation

Before everyone goes and adds information about the recent Kimmel operation by Take Back NYU!, please remember that incidents like this happen more often than you think in the history of a 175+ year institution. The protests 1.5 years ago about the College Republicans' "Find the Illegal Immigrant" game actually did garner international attention (it was on the front page of BBC World News), but it is not included in this article because it's not that important. The Kimmel Operation, on the other hand, was only mentioned briefly by local news outlets. It is thus simply not an integral part of this article. It may be important to the Take Back NYU! page, but this is an encyclopedia article about the institution of NYU, not a place where all incidents which involve media attention (think of every building NYU has ever built) are included. Before adding it please discuss here so we can come to a consensus whether or not it is justified for inclusion. Thanks.—Noetic Sage 04:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

33, not 31

According to the article located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation, there are 33, not 31 (as this NYU article lists) Nobel laureates affiliated with NYU. I changed it before but someone reverted it back for some reason. Explanation? --207.237.245.50 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That particular article has suffered from a lack of references for a long time now, and still does. You'll notice that not a single name under the NYU section has a citation. That being said, the difference in number is probably because NYU Poly is included in that list, which is debatable whether or not it should count toward NYU's number.—Noetic Sage 23:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia is not a source. Second of all, that list is a classic example of synthesis/original research with a host of reliability problems so I would discount anything it says precisely because any numbers are hugely inflated: some universities will include a Nobel laureate in their list even if he never matriculated but simply cross-enrolled being one but one particularly egregious example when they were affiliated for less than one year. If the source only says 31, then you can only include 31. Likewise, finding a source that says 31 and then appending on two more sources for individuals disjoint from that list and then claiming 33 is likewise inappropriate. Verifiability, not truth, is the coin of the realm here. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. :) —Noetic Sage 01:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Highly selective"

Use of the term "highly selective" in the lead has been contested. It is worth noting that none of the other Featured university articles use this term in the lead, and instead (if used at all) use it in the academics section and make sure they cite it. This term is a form of academic boosterism, which should be avoided at all costs. Since it is such a subjective term, any time it is used it should be accompanied by a citation and followed by "according to X". For example, the article could read "New York University is considered 'highly selective' by US News & World Report". Before adding it in again please discuss here so we can come to a consensus.—Noetic Sage 03:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Noeticsage, "highly selective" is a nefarious hybrid of a peacocked, weasely, word to avoid. Simply state the facts and let the reader make his or her own determination: X% of undergraduate applicants were admitted, Y% of them enrolled, Z% rematriculated for a 2nd year. Selectivity has absolutely nothing to do with quality, so I don't think it's even a worthwhile distinction to attempt to make. See WP:BOOSTER for more. Madcoverboy (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that "highly selective" is a peacocked, weasely, word to avoid, although it IS true that NYU is among the most selective universities in certain departments (e.g. law, business, arts). Statistics back this up - but, again, the statistics should speak for themselves, without the use of peacocked, weasely, words to avoid such as "highly selective". --207.237.245.50 (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

NEW NYU WEBSITE --> Potential Need to Update URLs

NYU has recently updated their website, and the URLs of various NYU pages may have changed in the process, such that some old URLs may no longer link to valid NYU pages. Some URLs within this article linking to NYU pages may therefore need to be updated. If you decide to help, feel free to post your progress here. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Misleading info on Top 10

The long list of citations given for the statement that NYU's schools and departments are frequently ranked in the top 10 by various agencies are misleading at best and untrue at worst. The articles repeat the same info, namely that Stern is one of the top 10 business schools and that the math and philosophy departments are highly rated, and that the law school is good for international law and tax law. Also, a link to the THES Top Universities negates any notion of being in the "top 10": NYU currently ranks 52nd in the world and outside the top 25 for USA on that rating.

The University of Guelph article by Pantelis Kalaitzidakis is only an analysis of methodology for college rankings, and does not ever mention NYU. The articles on The Economist and The Chronicle of Higher Education are only available to those with a subscription and thus cannot be verified by an editor without one. Several of the articles (NYU-DC center, Wagner School of Public Health) link to pages on NYU's website, which can hardly be considered objective information. The Science Watch article ranks NYU math department's research output at no. 12, not top 10.

I am sure one could find other criticisms of the citations given for the "Top 10" claims. That claim needs to be removed and the verifiable info (e.g. regarding Stern, Courant, the Law School and the Creative Writing Program) needs to be integrated into the article where appropriate, or moved to the articles for the individuals schools. The rest of the references need to be done away with altogether.Avman89 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Support removing this peacockery. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that slight irrelevant sources would count as "peacockery", but nonetheless I agree that a few of the sources used to support the concerned claim are irrelevant, in which case I support the removal. I will remove these sources now. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Having checked through the aforementioned sources, the following lists what they referred to. Those marked with *** were removed, with the explanation of removal given in parentheses afterwards. The rest were kept because they are relevant enough to support the claim.

[7] NYU's philosophy department is ranked #1 among 50 philosophy departments in the English-speaking world.

[8] NYU is also ranked #1 in Italian, finance, mathematics, and theater in the U.S.

[9] NYU's economics department is ranked #10 among 200 economics departments worldwide.

[10] NYU's Wagner Graduate School of Public Service is ranked 10th nationally by U.S. News and World Report. In addition, several of Wagner's public affairs specializations are ranked in the top 10.

[11] NYU's Creative Writing Program was included within The Atlantic's list of "Top Ten Graduate Programs in Creative Writing," having been selected from a pool of over 250 such programs currently active in the United States.

[12] The Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences is ranked #1 in applied mathematics in the U.S.

[13]*** The Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences is ranked #5 in citation impact worldwide. (removed because 'citation impact' is not a school/department/program)

[14]*** (removed due to repetition)

[15] NYU's Stern School undergraduate program is ranked #5 by U.S. News

[16] Stern's MBA program is ranked among the top 15 in the U.S. and worldwide: #10 in U.S. News.

[17] Stern's MBA program is ranked among the top 15 in the U.S. and worldwide: #8 in The Economist.

[18]*** Stern's MBA program is ranked among the top 15 in the U.S. and worldwide: #2 by research contribution. (removed because 'research contribution' is not a school/department/program)

[19] The School of Law is ranked #6 among law schools in the U.S. by U.S. News and World Report (and has been ranked by the same source as high as #4 in previous years).

[20] The law school is the nation's top law school in tax law.

[21] The law school is the nation's top law school in international law.

[22] The law school is the nation's top law school in jurisprudence (philosophy of law).

[Note: number in the bracket refers to the number of the source BEFORE removal of these sources from supporting the claim]

--82.31.164.172 (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So why does 82.31.164.172 keep removing the US News & World Report ranking for NYU? And why does this person rather have the ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities) ranking when ARWU is considered a minor ranking and whose ranking methodology is considered more dubious and was maintained by a Chinese university which ranks itself? Angry bee (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Angry Bee. I only removed it once (I don't think this would warrant consistent removal), and that was because I wasn't aware that US News & World Report was considered a source authoritative enough on college rankings to warrant its ranking being listed in this article. However, upon a little more research, it seems that (although US News & World Report's rankings are still considered quite dubious) the source itself may nonetheless be authoritative enough to warrant inclusion of their ranking. Whether or not the ranking methodologies of ARWU are "more dubious" than those of US News & World Report is up for debate. In any case I have left your changes to the article this time. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been removed again. Probably by you. And as far as I know and most of Americans, US News & World Report is at least under more scrutiny and more exposure than ARWU. I would LOVE for you to point out any published material on the criticism and methodologies of ARWU. Angry bee (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

specific rankings

Hey, I see there's an infobox for overall university rankings. How about, additionally, rankings of specific schools/departments? --Supjet (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Those rankings can be discussed on the respective school or college articles, if notable. A Wikipedia article about the university as a whole should not be a compendium of all rankings for every one of its subunits. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Boosterism

I was extremely disappointed to find this sentence in the lead: "NYU is consistently ranked as a leading academic institution in the world." Please review Wikipedia guidelines on synthesis of claims, verifiability, peacock words, weasel words, and boosterism if there are any questions as to why this phrasing is completely unacceptable. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Madcoverboy, I don't see any boosterism in play here. This is not a claim that NYU is the "best" in this or that. The sentence merely suggests its relatively high placement in ranking lists, which is completely verifiable thanks to the sources provided. --208.120.72.134 (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Consistently" is a synthesized claim and weasel word, these rankings are only for a given year - what year? how high? by whom? "Leading" is a weasel and peacock word - what rank? when? Why not simply state the ranking by an organization? There only thing to verify here is that 3 organizations (several of questionable reliability, even for rankings institutions). Based on this logic, all universities are consistently ranked leading academic institutions because there is no threshold for what is or is not leading, there is no way of establishing consistency, etc. I'll be removing this again until there is a consensus to include something more neutral, verifiable, and reliable. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from. I guess quite a few other articles are in need of cleaning up, not just NYU's. ;) --208.120.72.134 (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I really do try my best to clean as many as possible up. I just completely renovated Wellesley's article today, for instance. There's one of me and several thousand deserving Wikipedia articles about colleges and universities! You're welcome to tag along... Madcoverboy (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

IP address 78.133.94.154 has recently added the claim that NYU is consistently considered a leading university. Taking into account Madcoverboy's comments, this claim seems like boosterism as it stands, because no sources are referenced verifying this, and thereby "consistently" and "leading" are evidently synthesized. However, I think I have fixed the sentence such that it does not exhibit any boosterism. I have done this by rephrasing the sentence to say that NYU is ranked as a top university, and this claim now references sources that can validate this claim. For example, NYU being ranked as a "top" university is validated because ARWU ranks universities in brackets organized by top X, and NYU is consistently ranked highly in the top bracket. Also, thanks to the sources, "consistently" no longer seems completely synthesized - the university has been ranked highly by the Academic Ranking of World Universities since 2003. Nonetheless, I don't think it is necessary to include the word "consistently" to get the main idea across, so that will be left out. As for your other worries, Madcoverboy: the referenced sources explain in "what year", "how high" and "by whom", and such details are also given in the "Rankings" section of the article. If you do some research, you will find that the reliability of each referenced source for this claim is fairly trusted compared to most other sources out there, thanks to relatively objective ranking methodologies. --Supjet (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is boosterism when only the good rankings are mostly included and the bad are mostly excluded. I believe this applies to this article. The fact that some of you people with IP addresses as names play the defensive card (e.g., "other articles are in need of cleaning up, not just NYU's. ;)") seems to support boosterism. Angry bee (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Angry bee, it is not necessarily boosterism if rankings are excluded. What matters on Wikipedia is including rankings from reliable authoritative sources. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

When you selectively exclude low rankings from reliable sources and include high ones from reliable sources, that is a form of boosterism; actually, it borders on deception. Angry bee (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at the article now and I see rankings that could be considered relatively low compared to the majority of rankings given to NYU: Times Higher Education's #60, for instance. And I reiterate, if you have found other comparatively low rankings for NYU, please feel free to add them to the article (you can edit, right?), given that the corresponding sources are sufficiently reliable and authoritative. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should I add them when you already have access to that information!?? If you find a ranking from source XYZ, why would you select only the high ones and not low ones? That was my original concern; the bias was disturbing. Yes now the articles looks better. Thank you. Angry bee (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Mangoeater1000 / Mambo420 / 128.238.110.*

I'm presuming that these accounts either

(a) belong to the same user or

(b) at least apply very similar types of edits at around the same times.

For the purposes of practicality, I will refer to these accounts as one user.
The types of edits referred to include the addition of an excessive number of minor details on NYU-Poly, together of which are disproportionate in amount compared to that of other schools at NYU, and often seem to serve to advertise NYU-Poly without contributing to a general article on NYU in any meaningful way.
Recent additions by this user can be seen in the Edit History of NYU and mostly comprise very trivial details, including extremely minor rankings. A recent specific example is a long list of all of NYU-Poly's centers, containing many external links to NYU-Poly's website. Many of the edits have been reverted, while the remainder have been consolidated where possible.
Some of these edits would belong better (that is, if they belong anywhere) in the NYU-Poly article, but it looks like the NYU-Poly article has, at the time of writing, already been labelled with the following:

- This article's introduction may be too long for its overall length. Please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article. For more information please read the layout guide and Wikipedia's lead section guidelines. (July 2012)

- A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (July 2012)

- This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (July 2012)

- This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (July 2012)

Taking a look at the Edit History of NYU-Poly, it looks like the same user is involved.
Despite verbal notes to the user, the user appears to be continuing to constantly engage in such edits, in which case it would be wise for other editors to remind the user in question to please refrain from such. If the user continues disrupting the articles in question despite continued verbal notes, further action may need to be taken. --Schiez (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. 128.238.140.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just tried to delete this comment. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Updated account list. --Schiez (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The user accounts have been blocked, but not the IPs. This page has been protected to prevent anonymous IPs from editing. Feel free to contact me at any time if the problem recurs. Thank you.-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  20:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

NYU-Poly Cleanup

The recent section on NYU-Poly alumni contains many typographical errors and may be in need of trimming to some extent. Please also help clean up any further edits added by above user(s) since they tend to contain many typographical errors that may cause the article to fail to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, and also contain a disproportionate amount of details on NYU-Poly. --Schiez (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved as the section has been reverted by the user(s) in question. --Schiez (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2