Talk:New Jersey Institute of Technology

Cutting out of awards won by Alumni from the opening paragraph

On several occasions a short list of awards won by NJIT alumni have been either removed or relocated from the opening paragraphs (3 in all) in the NJIT page. I am perplexed by this as a review of other stem-focused schools shows that most have similar listings in their opening paragraphs. So, it appears that if the school is famous enough, such lists are OK but for lesser-known schools it's a no-no. Among its alumni, NJIT counts a Turing Award winner, Judea Pearl, a congressional medal of Honor winner - one of the monuments men - and National Medal of Technology and Innovation recipient. Call me biased but I think it's pretty clear that a double-standard is in place and has been for quite a while. For example, check out MIT or Stanford or Harvard or Carnegie Mellon or NYU or University of Pennsylvania or University of Texas at Austin or University of California, at: Los Angeles, San Diago, Santa Barbara, etc. etc. (my hand is getting tired.) SO, what gives??? Rrsimone (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"Well, that article has X, therefore that justifies Y on this article" is a very old argument that has rarely been accepted, not to mention that it is a textbook fallacy. As for ledes on university articles, they need to follow the stringent rules outlined by the dominant consensus on descriptions of university reputations on ledes. Alumni sections need to follow WP:DUE, and ledes as a whole need to be compliant with MOS:LEDE. The former outlines the due weight that is necessary for inclusion (i.e., like having a sufficiently weighted alumni section in the body), and the latter outlines that ledes are reflections of an article's body content. So for the NJIT material, it lacked the body weight and cut straight to imposing an alumni lede — this is probably one of the most common issues out there regarding WP:BOOSTER. I've detailed this ad nauseam on the very pages you've cited. GuardianH (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

accessing a comment interchange that no longer seems to be available on one pariy's talk pg.

HELP: I sent a note to GuardianH on his talk page regarding his relocating of a short list of notable awards,e.g.Turing,from the opening paragraphs of the New Jersey Institute of Technology article to the list of notable alumni. The relocation was done on 4 July, this year. I put my write up on both his talk page and my talk page shortly thereafter. I've had important issues to deal with lately and I would like to continue the conversation but that conversation no longer appears on guardian's talk page, or more likely, it's there but I don't know how to access it. Rrsimone (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@GuardianH: I think this is referring to an interaction with you. ElKevbo (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It had little to no weight or support in the body, obviously lacking being WP:DUE from the beginning. The lede needs to be a due reflection of the body in accordance with MOS:LEDE, as I mentioned previously. GuardianH (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Guardian, I appreciate your citing all the rules. After reading them several times, especially the one about “weight”, which you seem to lean on the most, I have three comments:

First, in the present context, there is the fundamental problem with “weight”, in that it is a highly subjective criteria. (If I were writing rules I would never use a word like weight.) Second, applying the concept of weight to medals, awards, honors, etc., which are discrete and won by individuals, seems misplaced to me. If you are going to use the concept, it should be applied to things that play, or don’t play, major roles in college life at that instruction, e.g. athletic, scholastics, community involvement, co-op programs, religion, political leanings, taking courses at foreign universities, ROTC involvement, social life, on-campus diversity, general characteristic of the student body, e.g. economic strata, where they come from, age distribution, etc. Third, as I read your comment, what you seem to be saying/suggesting is that if an institution, via its alumni, active teaching staff, visiting fellows or contracted researchers, can claim a large number of accolades then, ipso facto, that aspect of the institution has the “weight” that allows it to mention the awards up front. Otherwise, your accolades, if any, go to the rear of the bus.

I think the problem with this is extremely obvious: Big name, big endowment institutions are always going to have the necessary “weight” because they use the dividends on their (enormous) endowments to fund research and to offer perks, e.g., inexpensive mortgages, light or no teaching load, etc. to “attract” big name researchers. The effects are pernicious. It’s enough to make me wonder how any public institution ever manages to attract/retain any accolade winners at all, a problem that your application of “weight” only makes worse.

Lastly, you clearly know Wikipedia’s rules, procedures, etc. better than I do. And since I see your take on weight in this context as a serious problem, I would like to present my case to the appropriate dispute-resolution committee/body. I would be willing to accept any decision they come to. Also, I would like your initial response to my first comment to be part of what’s considered; in particular, where you talk about having to deal with this issue “ad nauseam”. If you are so inclined, could you open a dispute, or could you tell me how to do it. If you are not interested in getting this going, please let me know. PS. I checked 10 more “big name” institutions and it the same old, accolades-up-front, story.Rrsimone (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Richard R. Simone

July 28, 2024 Rrsimone (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Follow up to re-location of accolades on NJIT's page

Hello Guardian, First I apologize for starting a new topic, but I don't know how to access the initial topic page as it's no longer visible. Regarding your response to my comment, I appreciate your citing all the rules. After reading them several times, especially the one about “weight”, which you seem to lean on the most, I have three comments:

First, in the present context, there is the fundamental problem with “weight”, in that it is a highly subjective criteria. (If I were writing rules I would never use a word like weight.) Second, applying the concept of weight to medals, awards, honors, etc., which are discrete and won by individuals, seems misplaced to me. If you are going to use the concept, it should be applied to things that play, or don’t play, major roles in college life at that instruction, e.g. athletic, scholastics, community involvement, co-op programs, religion, political leanings, taking courses at foreign universities, ROTC involvement, social life, on-campus diversity, general characteristic of the student body, e.g. economic strata, where they come from, age distribution, etc. Third, as I read your comment, what you seem to be saying/suggesting is that if an institution, via its alumni, active teaching staff, visiting fellows or contracted researchers, can claim a large number of accolades then, ipso facto, that aspect of the institution has the “weight” that allows it to mention the awards up front. Otherwise, your accolades, if any, go to the rear of the bus.

I think the problem with this is extremely obvious: Big name, big endowment institutions are always going to have the necessary “weight” because they use the dividends on their (enormous) endowments to fund research and to offer perks, e.g., inexpensive mortgages, light or no teaching load, etc. to “attract” big name researchers. The effects are pernicious. It’s enough to make me wonder how any public institution ever manages to attract/retain any accolade winners at all, a problem that your application of “weight” only makes worse.

Lastly, you clearly know Wikipedia’s rules, procedures, etc. better than I do. And since I see your take on weight in this context as a serious problem, I would like to present my case to the appropriate dispute-resolution committee/body. I would be willing to accept any decision they come to. Also, I would like your initial response to my first comment to be part of what’s considered; in particular, where you talk about having to deal with this issue “ad nauseam”. If you are so inclined, could you open a dispute, or could you tell me how to do it. If you are not interested in getting this going, please let me know. PS. I checked 10 more “big name” institutions and it the same old, accolades-up-front, story. Rrsimone (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Rrsimone I've moved your message to this talk page where it is most appropriate. GuardianH (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Before I address any of the points you've made above, it's worth noting that you might want to have first considered the Conflict of interest policy on Wikipedia, given that you are focused on articles related to NJIT. So if you are a donor, faculty/affiliate, or person otherwise employed by the New Jersey Institute of Technology, you are required to issue a disclosure before editing and recommended to issue requests on its talk page.

So there are a few things about the due weight policy that are different from the points that you have made above. Due weight is actually measured by objective criteria, and that is the case here. Ledes conform with MOS:LEDE, which dictates that ledes are a reflection of the body material in accordance with its weight. Big name, big endowment institutions often have alumni ledes because they have an expansive alumni section in the body that expounds explicitly on those details in accordance with the dominant consensus on universities and colleges descriptions of reputation, synthesis of material, and due weight. NJIT has not reached that point, and many other articles—even Big name, big endowment institutions—have not either, so such additions have been removed. If you are looking for dispute resolution, we have WP:3O, but since this a subject where there has already been an extensive formation of consensus there isn't much other editors can say besides to conform the article with that pre-existing consensus. GuardianH (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am very busy with some important matters so I'm not going to pursue this matter now. However, I couldn't help but notice your jumping into "conflict of Interest" territory in your very first sentence. I don't see that it's any of your business as to how I chose to spend some of my time. All you need to know is that if there was a conflict of interest, I would have complied with the rules - a notice that I had assumed was unnecessary under Wikipedia's "assume good faith" guidance.  Rrsimone (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)