Talk:Richard H. Brodhead

Untitled
the most recent edit contains material close to slander on Brodhead. I am adding a NPOV tag and giving the author 24 hours to edit his own material, along with sources. if he does not, I will be removing it and changing it to:

''At Duke University, Brodhead is currently criticized by some for acting against workers' rights. These issues mainly revolve around Angelica Corporation, to whom the University's Health System outsourced its laundry, and the implementation of a "living wage" for university employees.'' Bubbachuck 16:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

edited last paragraph for NPOV. Prev author gave no sources for heavily biased statements. Bubbachuck 01:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PSM link
In deciding to remove the link to http://www.palestineconference.com from the main text, I used the analogy of a man who makes a controversial decision that is tangentially related to why he is famous. should that decision have a link to its parenting organization? to me, no, it would seem too much like an advertisement. IF the link was to an Wikipedia article such as Palestine Conference, which is NPOV, THEN i would say, yes the link has merit. as to an off-Wikipedia site, i'd say we'd be treading on dangerous waters to use Brodhead's biography as a launching site for a controversial subject. i'd appreciate thoughts on this matter. -- Bubbachuck 04:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If we are mentioning the controversy caused by the PSM conference, we should link to the original, I think. Brodhead's handling of the conference was a hot topic on campus (and remains so, in certain circles), so the link to the conference webpage should remain.  Perhaps we can also link to a page that opposed the conference, to point out why the topic was controversial.  Thoughts?  -- Termite47384


 * Termite47384 i took the liberty of putting ur reply into the "PSM link" heading. For your reference, you should reply directly in this heading....it makes for easier organization for longer discussions.  As for the topic at hand, PSM was a hot issue but that does not mean that a link to the conference's homepage is justified.  since the topic is itself controversial, by linking it from a NPOV article it would serve to tilt the neutrality of the article.  as for TWO links, one for each side in order to balance out the neutrality, that changes the scope and purpose of brodhead's biography.  it would also burden the reader of reading two foreign webpages.  again, i am in favor of a PSM article created.  it does not have to be very long, just point out both viewpoints.  then a link from Brodhead's article sholuld be created. -- Bubbachuck 04:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Coach K's potential leaving--relevant?
A summary of the dispute: There has long been a paragraph in this article that mentions that on the first day of Brodhead's presidency at Duke, Coach K threatened to leave. NatusRoma thinks that it is very important that this fact not be in the article. I will leave it to him or her to describe why this is so important. As of the last edit, the paragraph in question read:


 * Brodhead suffered difficult first day as university president. That day, Duke's star basketball coach, Mike Krzyzewski announced that the Los Angeles Lakers had offered him $40 million to become their new coach. Brodhead averted crisis when Krzyzewski decided to stay at Duke.

I believe it should be in the article. It is a verifiable fact that Coach K threatened to leave on Brodhead's first day. I believe that it is relevant to people who seek to understand Brodhead's tenure so far at Duke. NatusRoma has demanded that I prove by citing a reliable source that the story is important to understanding Brodhead's tenure. I hold that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. As I understand it, one does not need to show that a verifiable source has stated a fact's importance--only its accuracy. It's an editorial judgment (that is, what we editors do) to decide whether it's important.

My read of policy is common sense. Not a single one of the facts in this article has a source that says that it's important. Why is the fact that Brodhead was a member of Manuscript in the article? Can you show me a verifiable source that says that it's important? No. It's there so that a reader interested in Brodhead can learn it and make his or her own interpretive judgment.

If I were to write "Krzyzewki's threat to leave is important because it shows that Brodhead is under the thumb of the athletic department," or "Some people argue that Krzyzewki's threat to leave is important because it shows that Brodhead is under the thumb of the athletic department," I agree that I'd need a reliable source that backed me up. (I think I could find it, though, since I know I've read that somewhere in the voluminous coverage of the lacrosse scandal.) But that's not what's written here--instead we're putting in a verifiable fact that is relevant in the biography of the subject.

Having an edit war about this is dumb. Can we get some other opinions please? 71.77.12.236 01:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." I understand that the fact that Coach K threatened to leave is verifiable, but I am challenging the accuracy of the contention that the incident is "important to understanding Brodhead's tenure". Please find a reliable source. NatusRoma | Talk 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, yes, I can find a source that agrees with me. See, for example, Peter J. Boyer, "Big Men on Campus," The New Yorker, 4 Sept 2006); Jane Stancill, "Brodhead's presidency enjoys trial by ordeal," Raleigh News and Observer, 8 Apr 2006.  But this is really besides the point.  You are simply misunderstanding Verifiability.  The contention that the incident is important is not in the article and therefore needs not be sourced in the same way the fact is sourced.  My statement that the incident is "important to understanding Brodhead's tenure" is--absolutely--a matter of opinion.  It explains why I think the paragraph should be in the article.  As I wrote before, not a single sentence in the article cites a verifiable source to show that it is important, only that it is true.  Whether it's important is a matter of editorial discretion--which is what we editors do.
 * I posted my lengthy discussion why I thought the paragraph should be in the article and waited about a week before restoring the paragraph. In that time, not a single editor commented.  Having done what you (unreasonably) asked, I am now restoring the paragraph.  May I suggest that you, as a sign of good faith, not revert until another editor comments?  Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make your point. 71.77.12.236 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

BLP Dispute
The article needs to be cleaned up per WP:BLP. This article is not a venue to make attacks against the subject, and especially not a venue to bring personal grudges (See WP:BATTLE). Please remember, per BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia" --Ronz 00:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are very serious violations of the biography of living persons policy in this article, which I've tried to remove. Please read the policy carefully before inserting negative information - all such information must be clearly and reliably sourced. Controversy over Brodhead's actions in the lacrosse case may be better dealt with in the main article on the controversy. Given the severity and scope of the problems with editors of this article, further edits that introduce unsourced or poorly sourced negative information, particularly by repeat offenders, may result in the article being protected or editors being blocked. If in doubt, discuss the proposed source or edit here on the talk page before inserting it. MastCell Talk 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, all the criticisms of Brodhead have been removed-- and there are numerous good citations available in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case article of criticisms that would be relevant to the article. The only remaining information seems to be the defenses against the (now unlisted) criticisms. For an NPOV article, at least some quick reference to the forced resignation of Mike Pressler and other aspects of the handling of the case should be mentioned. Here are a couple potential sources (from the main scandal article) that appear to put Brodhead's handling of the situation in context.


 * http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/06/22/duke0626/index.html


 * http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2398409


 * http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/573369.html


 * Anyway, since it's tagged I'd like to hear what people think of these proposed changes. It should leave the article much improved without passing judgement on Brodhead, and without letting the lacrosse case take the bio over.


 * Wellspring 23:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Duke lacrosse scandal has it's own page. What's written here about it should be summarized from the main article, making sure that BLP isn't violated in the process. --Ronz 01:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. The point is that what's currently here doesn't really summarize Brodhead's role as related in the article or supported by the references. Hence the need for the update. The stuff I'm looking to add are the criticisms already voiced, verifiable from the sources above and maintaining NPOV. The criticism is noteworthy and, properly sourced and neutrally stated, should be included.
 * Wellspring 02:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources you've listed are certainly reliable by Wikipedia's criteria... I suppose the only other issue is making sure that criticism is presented fairly. Certainly WP:BLP states that negative information, if well-sourced and neutrally presented, is fair game for inclusion. The problem is only with poorly sourced negative information, or if a negative tone starts to overwhelm the article out of proportion to its representation in good sources. MastCell Talk 03:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK Finally added the changes. MastCell, could you review them to make sure I conformed to BLP?


 * Wellspring 03:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Richard H. Brodhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070526075138/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/04/11/national/a113721D83.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/04/11/national/a113721D83.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Richard H. Brodhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080608190716/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/1565/story/720509.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/1565/story/720509.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Richard H. Brodhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630095746/http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/523377.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/523377.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726220742/http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/12/60_minutes.html to http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/12/60_minutes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207155742/http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/03/brodheadlacrosse.html to http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/03/brodheadlacrosse.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207155742/http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/03/brodheadlacrosse.html to http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/03/brodheadlacrosse.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2007%2F04%2F11%2Fnational%2Fa113721D83.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)