Talk:Richard H. Brodhead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Wikipedia: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[1]); Jane Stancill, "Brodhead's presidency enjoys trial by ordeal," Raleigh News and Observer, 8 Apr 2006[2]. But this is really besides the point. You are simply misunderstanding Wikipedia: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)