Talk:Theodore Rappaport

What this article needs
I copied the following from my discussion at DGG's TP, and reformatted it into a list: Atsme 📞📧 22:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC) "But more is needed:  DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) A little more bio: place of birth, high school, undergraduate degree, free photo if available (found Commons photo)10:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) The books should be cited to worldcat, not to book dealers. Alternatively the ISBN  format template should be used ✔ Used Citation bot 14:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Strictly speaking each individual award needs a reference. But at least the list needs a link to his CV 14:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Many of the citations are a little defective. Press release sources should be minimized. Probably a single link to his cv would replace many of them. Used Citation bot 14:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) The papers selected for citing merely show he worked in a field. They do not show he did significant work in a field. You can fix this by checking citations and listing them. ✔Sections in article show work and are cited. 14:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * got 'er done. Added a section for his early life, and also worked through the citations. Atsme 📞📧 14:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that degree of detail about his motivations, which can be based only on what he says about himself, is not included in scientist bios unless the person is so famous that it's been independently discussed in multiple sources (e.g. Gauss, Einstein, Faraday, Pasteur)--and see the brevity of the sections on even Gauss and Faraday and Pasteur) . We do have many bios  of academics who are merely notable, not famous, and   have some degree of this motivational and overcoming life obstacles material, but for non-famous ones it is all gradually being removed,  and I do not recall that any such removal has ever been challenged in the last 4 or 5 years,, certainly not challenged successfully.   (I pay less attention to most other fields) . I can't think of any scientist  bio, even for the most famous people, that  has anything like this degree of detail, (We probably should add considerably more for Einstein , since there are multiple published biographies that cover this period in detail).

But even if you should happen to disagree with our normal  style for a bio, there's a more basic problem because of our BLP policy. See WP:BLPSOURCES Here there is not even a true third party source at all, just press releases from his own university. Ref 11 says at the bottom that the author "Richard Lovegrove is a senior writer in the publications department" of Virginia Tech. Ref 12 is a press release from Purdue. Under the provision ofWP:BLPSELFPUB, even if we regard the material as written under his direction,  the praise it gives him for overcoming difficulties is "unduly self-serving".
 * All ofthe detail that is not plain facts from such sourcesthat could in principle be verified (such as where he went to school) must be removed. I coulddo, but it's really your jpb to first make a trty at it. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain to me why you don't consider an archived article that was written in Virginia Tech Magazine a RS despite it having been published by a reputable university that also claims its publications and library archives are scholarly?, . The article I cited was written in the Spring of 1993 by Lovegrove who is still working as VT's copywriter and has been for the past 22 years or so, .  Why would you not consider him a credible author? The article he wrote quotes Rappaport so I actually did include things Rapport said about himself, all of which is compliant with PAGs including RS, V and BLP.  It's hard for me to believe that a VT publication and a Purdue University faculty bio would not be considered high-quality RS.  Is the early life material really "unduly self-serving"?  The BLP without the early life information is what's self-serving because it reads exactly like a CV.  If we are now censoring real life biographical material from WP:BLPs then what we're really writing are resumes, not biographies.  I've also noticed how so many of our articles are becoming more like promotional pieces for industry - like the Red Bull article, the Whopper burger articles, and what this BLP looked like before I started editing.  How is that encyclopedic?  Biographies should look more like what Britannica is publishing:  but that isn't what's happening.  I am thoroughly confused by your response. Atsme 📞📧 08:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) If Virginia Tech wrote an article about a Virginia Tech faculty member or ex-faculty member or alumnus,then it's a press release. Library archives are only as scholarly as the material put in them, and if the university puts it's own press releases in them, they remain press releases.
 * 2) The sort of material in this one is actually oral history, and a person says what they like, and we do not include that. I've seen lots of oral histories too, and autobios, and I agree with the experts in this field that they tend to be both selective and contradictory. (e.g., my sister and I have contradictory memories of large parts of our childhood; my wife and her sister ditto, and I assume everyone.)
 * 3) As for promotionalism, and inappropriately detailed content, see WP:EINSTEIN.
 * 4) What NOT CV means is that we put in only the important parts. True academic CVs have to be seen to be believed--for someone at his level they will run 20 pages long, and include every academic and public lecture he gave, every conference where he chaired a session, every book review he wrote, every journal he was on the editorial board on, every journal where he served as a peer-reviewer, every student he supervised, every committee he has ever been on, every grant he ever got, and every prize he ever received from high school on. The parts we include is the basic sequence of degrees and positions, the books and the 4 or 5 most-cited peer-reviewd articles, editors in chief of journals, Presidents of national scientific societies, national level prizes other than student prizes, and those of his student who are notable enough for Wikipedia articles. The analog in the corporate world is complete product lists.
 * 5) I am trying trying to remove press releases and other promotional material from as many articles as I can. I concentrate on academic ones because I have decades of experience in knowing just they look like, and because I know how to find actually reliable material to meet WP:PROF. I also do industrial & commercial  & nonprofit  ones if they are particularly bad or if someone calls my attention to them; by now I've seen so many that   I know how to spot them, and some experts in that field have guided me, but it's much harder finding decent replacement material.
 * 6) I'll deal with this one, since after all this is my field.  DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good plan, that way I can watch it unfold as you work on it, and get a better idea of what you're expecting. Atsme 📞📧 20:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Vanity piece?
Certainly notable but clearly written in a tone that deliberately boosts the subject's profile. Also has all the hallmarks of commissioned editing. What to do about it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Fixed. In wireless, my field, he is that prominent. Dave Burstein Daveburstein (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Removed redundancies and hyperbole. Shortened. Removed advisory box.

COI Response
I am an employee of NYU Tandon and the Web Design and Development Manager of NYU WIRELESS. I am only updating with routine facts, such as awards received or new facial duties or obligations. The edits I have made are simply focusing on factual events and accomplishments that are documented by outside sources, and not promotional in nature. I only wish to keep the page updated with the most current information and free of typos or errors. Currently, there is a typo in the introductory paragraph of this page. Could you please fix the spelling of "adoption?” It is currently spelled " rgwdoption." This is the kind of error I would like to fix on the page in addition to adding awards or new achievements that are factual. Musicman713 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request - new content
I am requesting an addition to this page to the effect that Theodore Rappaport was recently elected to the 2019 Wireless History Foundation Hall of Fame. Might this addition be added in the first paragraph just after the second sentence, "He was elected a Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors in 2018.[5]"? Might this information also be added to the sidebar as the (new) second bullet right after the one noting that he has won the IEEE Eric E. Sumner Award for 2020? Thank you very much. Supporting documentation: https://wirelesshistoryfoundation.org/whf-hall-of-fame/ or https://wirelesshistoryfoundation.org/wireless-history-foundation-announces-2019-inductees-for-wireless-hall-of-fame/ or http://wirelesshistoryfoundation.org/theodore-rappaport/. Third party news stories include: https://www.rcrwireless.com/20190729/5g/nyu-professor-wireless-hall-fame and He is also third from right in the group photo on this page: https://wirelesshistoryfoundation.org. Thanks so much, and don't hesitate to query me here or at Kgberg (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply 1-DEC-2019

 * For this distinction ("The Wireless History Foundation's Hall of Fame") to be added, the award should demonstrate independent notability in Wikipedia. An award is considered independently notable if it has its own article in Wikipedia.
 * Please supply (placed in a new post below) this verification of independent notability by supplying the name of the Wikipedia article which mentions the award.
 * When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you!

Regards, Spintendo  22:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. Further question. While there is not Wikipedia page on Wireless Hall of Fame, I did discover mention of the Wireless Hall of Fame on Tom Wheeler in third paragraph under the "career" sub-head: "In recognition of his work in promoting the wireless industry, Wheeler was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003 and in 2009." Was the placement of that note on his page done in such a way as to allow for the mention? If so, could that be replicated on Ted Rappaport's page? Thanks! Kgberg (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd say there seem to be enough mention of the hall of fame. Even though there is not  an article for it, I'd say it is notable. —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 01:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , since I'm (as noted in COI disclosure at top of talk page), should I now add a Request Edit template below to try to get the change made on the Rappaport article under honors and awards after the bullet noting his IEEE Eric Sumner Award? Here's an article noting his having been given the honor. Thanks. Kgberg (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the post-event release from the WHF. The ties between the event sponsors and the honorees raised an alert on my "pay-for-play" radar. However, I understand that these events typically have to be paid for by, so I guess the question becomes whether the process is ethical or not. I expect there might be some sort of standard for how to do this in an ethical way. Perhaps there is some kind of meta-reporting on the subject or an organization that audits award processes, though this might (unfairly) leave out smaller organizations that can't afford to pay for an audit? Surely, the topic has been discussed here somewhere. With due regard for WP:OSE, I'll note that there are seven mentions of the "Wireless Hall of Fame" here (in other awardees' articles). It seems that if an article on the award itself could pass muster, that would answer the question. Some research at WT:WikiProject Awards is probably the next step. —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 21:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)