Talk:Northeastern University

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 University because 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]

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)


 * This article has a significant issue with WP:BOOSTER. Prime examples include:
 * 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)
 * Dispute resolution
 * @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 can rather 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)
 * Relevant policies may be found on WP:NOSOURCES, WP:NPOV, and WP:PROMOTION. What is to be aimed for is
 * 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.
 * WP:PROMOTION
 * WP:NOSOURCES
 * MOS:PUFFERY
 * GuardianH (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard
 * 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)
 * I've opened a dispute resolution notice for a third party to weigh in on this debate @GuardianH
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard Relativebalance (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * Since there is also one or more subjective terms, I've also added Template:Peacock. GuardianH (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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:
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * @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)

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 and have opened a DNR on the subject here: Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

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


 * Coming here from the RFC noticeboard, looking through the page as it currently stands, I do see a lot of what you might call boosterism or puffery—editorializing language, making opinionated comments on the material of the article in a way that goes beyond what an encyclopedia should do, and often in favor of the university. I think GuardianH is working in the right direction, and in fact I don't think they went far enough in their version of the page you link here. If it wasn't a matter of dispute, I'd jump in and help with the cleanup process myself, just judging by how it looks right now. For the time being I definitely think the tags belong.
 * Words and phrases like "key part," "veteran," "comprehensive," "critics would likely agree," "notable," "quite significantly," "quiet, peaceful," and so on, in the context in which they appear here, are not neutral in tone. If sources have made claims like those, the article could state them with the proper attribution, e.g. "Cassandra Smith, writing for the Timbuktu Times, called the Spiritual Life Center's Sacred Space 'quiet and peaceful.'" That might be appropriate "sourced bias" for that kind of claim. Stating an opinion like that as a fact in the main text of the article is just non-neutral.
 * Speaking more abstractly, too, I actually think it does the university a disservice to have the article read this way in places. If you care about the university and want the article to reflect well on it, I think it would be much better if the article read in a more authoritative fashion overall. The more the article reads as slanted, the more a reader will look suspiciously at its actual facts.
 * As a side note, I'm also noticing some spots of writing that aren't exactly boosterism but still aren't neutral—things like, "A sort of 'mini' study abroad," or, "defined by stripped-down classicism and open spaces." Statements like that aren't inappropriately promotional per se, but they still express personal opinions that I don't think make sense in an encyclopedic voice. (Again, if you can find sources that say those things, I think it could be fine to include them in the voice of the source—e.g. "Northeastern calls the program 'a sort of 'mini' study abroad,'" with a reference to one of their published brochures or the like where it says that.) So, to the extent that this article could use a "neutrality overhaul," I think it would be good to be mindful of passages like that as well. Mesocarp (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: It would help if User:GuardianH detailed here some examples of puffery/boosterism in order to highlight the problem, if there is any.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reply: I listed some examples to @Relativebalance when we were talking earlier. I've copied them here:
 * GuardianH (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I previously stated, my major area of concern was edits removing well-sourced neutrally written information, such as these three you had made:
 * 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
 * I think we can improve upon these examples without removing the large sections these edits cut. Relativebalance (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support refactoring and debiasing. Actually the examples provided by u:Relativebalance only convinced me further that a clean-up is needed. Sections like Dialogues of Civilizations and N.U.in are based almost only on Northeastern's own materials. I'd have no objections to re-adding them if other RS cover them. Alaexis¿question? 12:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support edits most of these were welcome changes and have made the article more neutral. I don't understand the sports edit which culled that section, though. Good cleanup overall. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * GuardianH (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I previously stated, my major area of concern was edits removing well-sourced neutrally written information, such as these three you had made:
 * 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
 * I think we can improve upon these examples without removing the large sections these edits cut. Relativebalance (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support refactoring and debiasing. Actually the examples provided by u:Relativebalance only convinced me further that a clean-up is needed. Sections like Dialogues of Civilizations and N.U.in are based almost only on Northeastern's own materials. I'd have no objections to re-adding them if other RS cover them. Alaexis¿question? 12:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support edits most of these were welcome changes and have made the article more neutral. I don't understand the sports edit which culled that section, though. Good cleanup overall. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Relativebalance It has been nearly a month since you began this RfC, and the second opinions of all three of this discussion's editors—@Mesocarp, @Alaexis, and @SportingFlyer—have favored a removal of the editorial bias I mentioned in the article. It's been about 12 days since the last comment, so I will reinstate my edits barring any further discussion. GuardianH (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @GuardianH @Alaexis @SportingFlyer Thanks for holding off for community input. Based on the feedback and further discussion, I agree that your case for bias in the article is legitimate. With that said however, how do you propose to move forward from here? Are you thinking the path forward is removing the sections specifically called out in this discussion (Language around the study abroad programs, Dialogues and NUin sections), and removing the puffery/boosterism you list in your above examples?
 * I see some support here for the case that your original edits were too bold (@SportingFlyer questions the docking of the sports section of the lede for instance). Additionally, the goal of these edits is to clean the article of boosterism and puffery correct? Your original edits appear to have added those tags for the first time in addition to the changes discussed. I would hope that any edits in furtherance of this consensus will allow us to remove those tags. What are your thoughts? Relativebalance (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I will reinstate most of my previous edits. Sections like Dialogues of Civilizations and N.U. will be removed, since they don't have any widespread coverage in secondary sources — in other words, they served really only as a means of promotion for the university by cherrypicking unnotable program(s). In addition, any MOS:EDITORIAL and MOS:PUFFERY will be removed along with the unsourced material. Per the discussion, it's become clear that the consensus for removing promotional material is apparent. @Relativebalance GuardianH (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Relativebalance I've reinstated my previous cleanup. If you want to keep some of the unsourced material, it would be best to go out and find some secondary sources so we can discuss their inclusion. Like @Alaexis pointed out, any program by Northeastern actually covered by widespread WP:RS may be included. Regarding the tag, I'll try and go through the article to cleanup any remaining puff so they can be removed soon. GuardianH (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @GuardianH Fair enough. I feel the tags are no longer necessary after your changes, but if you intend to keep working on the article then I leave removing them to your discretion. Relativebalance (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll also try writing adding new material for the lede, as the previous lede was far from emphasizing any of NEU's actually important details (student body, academics, etc). GuardianH (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. On that note, the co-op program is probably the most intriguing trait of the university in my opinion (i.e. mentioned in the comparatively brief Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on the school: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Northeastern-University) —worth considering for mention if you make further improvements to the lede. Relativebalance (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct abbreviation to follow the official abbreviation of over a decade
The abbreviation should be NU and never NEU. The official branding for Northeastern University has been NU for over a decade. NEU as an abbreviation was phased out before 2013.
 * What I think should be changed:
 * Why it should be changed:

While an ever-decreasing number of items still reference NEU in names rather than NU, the official stance for over a decade has been to use NU for the abbreviations.

Additionally, there is a separate, unaffiliated Northeastern University in China which goes by NEU. This university leans heavily into the NEU abbreviation, using it on all of their materials.

Keeping the US-based Northeastern University abbreviated as NU brings it into alignment with the official guidelines of over a decade and assists in clarifying between it and the China-based Northeastern University. 2013 archive showing Northeastern University encouraging use of NU
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Official Northeastern University branding guide explicitly saying to not use NEU

Official brand guidelines showing to use NU, not NEU

The official site China-based Northeastern University uses the NEU abbreviation as their primary top-level domain

The Chinese NEU Being referred to as NEU in higher education publications NU-xanderton (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * We need more than just the official guidelines that the university makes for its own employees - the university doesn't control this article or dictate its contents. How is this handled by people outside of the university e.g., reporters, scholars? ElKevbo (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please discuss and get consensus or provide reliable sources (preferably secondary sources) that show NU is used more commonly than NEU. Wikipedia typically follows a common name policy, meaning the name (or acronym in this case) most commonly used is also what is used on Wikipedia. Once you've got this, please feel free to reopen the request by changing `Edit COI|D` to `Edit COI` in source editor. Lewcm Talk to me! 10:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)