Talk:List of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is within the scope of the Big Ten WikiProject,

a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Big Ten Conference. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] John Bambenek

Is he notable like Jerry Sanders or Jack Kilby? When he becomes so, he would deserve a page here, with other notable people. --Ragib 04:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your POV is noted, but this isn't the place for it. There are plenty of people on here not on that par, such as someone there for "local reporting". -- 12.203.38.138 04:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Then correct at least the position in the list. It looks quite odd that a blogger and author has bee listed under technology and innovation with other very notable people (None of them are for "local reporting"). You might consider at least moving the entry to "Notable blogger" section. Putting him together with very famous engineers and scientists look very odd. Thanks. --Ragib 04:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
His books are all in information security, however. If it would make you feel better to move it, fine, as long as you make reference to the information security work too. -- 12.203.38.138 04:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. --Ragib 04:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with whoever just deleted him. It isn't a POV thing. That other undeserving folks are on the list isn't a valid reason to keep another undeserving person. Also, the article that on him has been heavily edited by him. Seems bad form. Superdosh 08:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
And all the people listed for "local reporting" have won Pulitzers. I feel that makes them notable. Superdosh 08:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
This has been a settled matter. He isn't listed with the Pulitzer winners (which have their own section). He's notable, it's been agreed upon. Don't like it, afd the bio. Also, it is not likely you are an appropriate person to be making such distinctions as you are affiliated with the same department he's in. Did he give you a bad grade once? -- 130.126.139.14 18:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree this is a "settled matter". There is no way that a relatively new blogger is on a par with Nobel prize winners and creators of billion-dollar companies. This shouldn't be a list of ever U of I alumnus who meets the relatively low notability standards for a WIkipedia article - that is what categories are for. He should be deleted from this list. -- DS1953 talk 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree - if he merits an article, then he merits inclusion here. If you have qualms about notability, significance, whatever , AfD his article, don't remove the entry from this page. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The matter was settled between editors at the time, because you came in 2 months later and decided to take up the issue again, doesn't mean it wasn't settled. Look at the publication list, his contributions are vast. -- 12.203.38.138 05:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll not revert your change but I disagree very strongly that a list (which should be intended to convey a notable group of alumni) has to include anyone that graduated from the University who merits an article in Wikipedia for any reason. I have nothing against a 28 year old security specialist I have never heard of, but I think a list has to mean something more than our admittedly low notability standards for articles. What we need, and what many other major universities have, is a category of alumni. See Category:Harvard alumni, for example. I have seen this discussion of "list versus category" several times before and the consensus elsewhere seems to be that the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia and the standards for inclusion in the list are different. Everyone, on the other hand, would be entitled to be in the category.
Using your logic, every minor league baseball player, every actor with an IMDb listing, every one-term state representative, and just about anyone who has published a book or released at least one record on a major label should also be on this list. I hope that is not the consensus, but if it is then we should search all the articles for any reference to the University and add the name of everyone who qualifies, rather than imply that someone like this guy is on the same level as John Bardeen, Roger Ebert or even Hugh Hefner.
Finally, as to the assertion that a decision on article on the University of Illinois was settled by three or four people two months ago and now is beyond change, I also disagree strongly. This is a wiki and it is always subject to change. If ten people come on tomorrow and agree that the criteria for the list should be changed, it will be changed. That is what this project is all about. But I also agree that my coming along as a lone voice, if that is the case, is tough luck for me. -- DS1953 talk 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, then if we're not going to be using Wikipedia's notability requirements, we'd better get a consistent standard adopted so that we don't have to do this with anyone else in the future -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Are there notability requirements? As I understand it, there's no official policy. How is something like this typically resolved? Superdosh 06:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting Indent) I've seen it done once before, at List of Eagle Scouts, where the editors talked about it, and then posted the guideline on top of the talk page. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The comment regarding the Pulitzer prize winners was in reference to the assertion above that less notable people (people listed for "local reporting") had been listed. I was pointing out that those people listed for "local reporting" had won Pulitzers and are thus not less notable.
As for your claiming that I have a bias, I've never met John Bambenek. We were both affiliated with the same laboratory (if he was there when I was), but I'm not sure what relevance that has.
Finally, ditto on everything DS1953 said. Just because he merits an article does not mean he merits a listing alongside John Bardeen. Superdosh 06:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Just for clarification of any "agreement", I got tired of edit-warring with 12.203.38.138, and at least got the reference removed from the Technology and Innovation section (where it was conveniently placed along side *really* notable people like Jerry Sanders or Jack Kilby). The only place that it could be moved to was the journalism section. At least that ended the tug-of-war with 12.203.38.*, but by no means that shows my endorsement for inclusion. Thanks. --Ragib 07:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Along those lines, 12.203.38.138 has a history of adding John Bambenek to any article Bambenek has even a tangential relation to.[[:Category:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign alumni
As a compromise (similar to the one reached for Mariam Sobh on the Daily Illini page before her article was deleted), I'm going to move Bambenek under a See also heading and out of the "Notable Alumni" heading.
I don't think he's notable because:
  • his publications do not qualify him because (according to his resume) for all but two of them, he was only a contributor. This hardly qualifies him as a notable academic (yet).
  • his blog does not qualify him because it's not notable enough [1] (yet).
  • and writing for the college newspaper does not qualify. Superdosh 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone besides User:12.203.38.138 even think this guy should be on this page at all? As Superdosh pointed out, 12.203.38.138's concept of "improving" Wikipedia seems to be limited to plugging in Bambenek wherever he can get away with it. I'd guess there is a 95% chance that User:12.203.38.138 is Bambenek tooting his own non-notable horn and about a 5% chance that he is someone close to Bambenek acting as his shill. Since that seems to be his only purpose for being at Wikipedia, his pushiing the name into this article is clearly POV. Let's just delete him from the page. What does everyone else think? -- DS1953 talk 16:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And it seems that a healthy part of the anti-Bambenek crowd is also UIUC people that have an axe to grind according to both his AFD discussion and others. Superdosh is affiliated with the same department, and apparently also runs in the same circles as User:Perardi. So before we start throwing accusations of bad faith around, let's realize there may be more to the opposition than meets the eye. -- 130.126.147.218 17:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's all calm down a bit and not throw around unfounded accusations. I am not affiliated with the same department as he was an undergraduate in Astrophysics, and I was an undergraduate in Electrical Engineering and Mathematics. We both worked at the same lab, but in completely different areas. I reiterate that I have never met the man.
My interest in this topic is because I am an alum and want to maintain some level of quality on this page. I have no personal affiliation with John Bambenek; I have never even seen one of his columns as he became a columnist after I left the University. On the other hand:
  • 130.126.147.218 is in the same area at the University as Bambenek as his IP address indicates (see [2]).
  • 12.203.38.138 is affiliated with Champaign-Urbana and likely is Bambenek or a personal friend of his (see [3]).
If I'm disqualified because I had a cursory affiliation with his lab or because I went to the UIUC, so are the anonymous users listed above.
And what circles is 130.126.147.218 referring to? I checked User:Perardi's userpage and our only commonality seems to be that we both were affiliated with the College of Engineering at the UIUC. So is 130.126.147.218 (and this must be true in order to use the computers in DCL). So it seems all three of us are running in the same cricle. Superdosh 18:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Perardi is in PRIDE, the campus GLBT group, who has been known not only the physically threaten others, but engage in a pattern of harassment to their "opponents" in a variety of mediums. Perardi had a problem with a column he interpreted to be anti-gay marriage. You list yourself as an LGBT ally on your user page. The fact that both of you, geographically connected and ideologically connected are engaging in similar patterns is suspect. In fact, almost everyone who is against this listing is somehow affiliated with the campus. If you think it shouldn't be here, you should have the consistency to afd his article instead. -- 130.126.146.184 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that I was unaware Perardi was associated with PRIDE (a group I was never associated with), I was unaware being an LGBT ally made my contributions suspect. I have never hid my potential biases (instead they are listed on my userpage). Second, Perardi and I are not geographically connected. We were, but I'm in Cambridge, MA now. Third, you are geographically and from your statements more personally connected to Bambenek than I. Superdosh 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably anyone commenting on this page will have some connection to the U of I, or they would not be interested enough to chime in. I graduated before you were Bambenek was born. Am I biased? Yes, in the sense that I don't like some person included that I feel dilutes the purpose of the list. It seems that most of the comments here agree. I particularly resent it when I believe that it is a vanity play by the non-notable person himself, which is what I believe based on the pattern. I see no reason to ask for a check-user to confirm my suspicion because I think the consensus will take care of this on its own. Furthermore, although I would be happy to AfD the article on Bambenek again, I think we need to create a broader principle here that not only keeps out vanity plays like Bambenek but also keeps the minor league baseball player and the local mayor off the list, even though they may merit articles themselves. Its not all about you Bambenek. -- DS1953 talk 19:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Bambenek's article is up for deletion again. Superdosh 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


John Bambenek simply has no business being on the list of most notable alumni from the University of Illinois.

  • His most notable merits for inclusion are his work in information security. To put his accomplishments in perspective, an average PhD graduate in computer science may write dozens of papers for peer-reviewed conferences and journals over their lifetime and have hundreds of references to their work from other scholarly works (a measure of impact). John's publications do not appear to be peer-reviewed, do not appear to be scholarly in nature, and do not appear to have a high level of impact. So his accomplishments are less than that of the average CS PhD from UIUC.
  • I don't believe having a blog or writing for the school newspaper are notable accomplishments in and of themselves. If they were valid criteria, hundreds of people would be eligible for the list, defeating the entire purpose.

I don't see why he is being included against the better judgement of nearly everyone. 67.171.73.202 06:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category versus list

I created a category Category:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign alumni and gave John Bambenek the honor of being the first person in the category (adding it to the 8 he was already listed in). Every person on this list should also be added to the category.

As for the list, I agree that we should discuss some guidelines for inclusion. I have to leave for work now but if no one else kicks off the discussion, I'll try something tonight. -- DS1953 talk 14:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] youtube?

someone should add something about the youtube founders. it looks like two of the three went to UIUC.

see YouTube and article on cs.uiuc.edu

Kaiken 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My Recent Changes

I made several changes to this page. I am new to wikipedia, so I don't know all the ground rules.

To begin, I added a section for academia. I intend to add one more name for a former President of the National Academy of Sciences.

I alphabetized the categories. I think this makes the page more user friendly.

I added a few names within politics and business. The questionable adds include the U.S. Ambassadors and the CFO of McDonald's. The U.S. Ambassadors both received the UIAA Alumni Achievement Award. In the eyes of the University, they are notable.

I am not sure if we should reserve the business section for CEO's and founders or if we should add CFO's and COO's. These positions are normally considered the #2 spot within the corporation. I want to hear other opinions on this issue.

--H.al-shawaf 18:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't add something for CEO's, CFO's specifically. CEO's come and go, even if they're founders. A founder is a founder forever.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supernode3 (talk • contribs).
I think CEOs are important if the company is important or large, or some other criterion. CFO's and COO's though, not so much. -- Superdosh 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the list should be limited to leaders of large, well recognized corporations or business entities. I am happy with deleting Paull (CFO McD's) if we collectively decide to stick to the CEO criteria. --H.al-shawaf 20:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brinker

Does Nancy Brinker belong in business? She seems more like an activist. Plus, her role as an ambassador probably qualifies her as a diplomat.H.al-shawaf 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_University_of_Illinois_at_Urbana-Champaign_people_d4b7.html"