Talk:Duke University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jesus Christ, enough with rankings!

I think pseudo-scientific rankings are WAY too prominent in this article. Can we please move them out of the first paragraph? They have no meaning: for example, Duke was ranked 52th in the world last year in the Times rankings, and somehow they have jumped 41 spots to 11th in the intervening twelve months. That change is ridiculous, and reflects the deeply flawed nature of these surveys.

Let me know if you all agree.

JTM 04:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating the validity of the rankings; that's an argument that will never be settled. I would say that it's not up to you either. The rankings, wrong or right, are fact. They do exist. Do they belong in such a prominent position in this article? I would agree with you and say no, due to their disputed accuracy, they probably do not. I think they should be moved, and we don't need to list every school that Duke is behind, that seems unnecessary and draws attention to the rankings. But I want to stress that many people find such rankings important, so they probably should appear somewhere. We can't just censor what we don't agree with. Look at other university articles and see how they deal with rankings, perhaps. 卫weizhe哲Talk to me! 14:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
A few months ago when this was a hot topic, I visited a whole bunch of schools and could not find any mention of rankings within the opening paragraph. i dont remember if i checked the rest of the articles but i don't recall ranking mentioned anywhere. this is why i was in favor of abolishing ranking mentions altogether. By putting Rankings in its own section, i think we're just drawing more attention to it. but then, people do care about it, unfortunately. --Bubbachuck 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Ranking are mentioned in Harvard's 1st section, In athletics for Princeton's, in MIT's 1st section, in Penn's 1st section, etc. Instead of having this constant debate about whether or not to put rankings in, we should just use an unbiased section that puts all the rankings. This is an article about Duke and rankings are something that people want to know about and find important. If we get ranked 3 or 34, it should be put in the article. It doesn't matter if we agree with the ranking or not.

I suggest we create a new section entitled "Rankings". Put every ranking of Duke there. Don't list schools we're below or above. Just write it and be over with it. Then, we can remove rankings from the rest of the article.Tinlash 20:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I guess that's good. No commentary or anything, just a list of rankings, and let people interpret them as they please. Probably at the end? I regret that having their own section will probably draw undue attention to them, but I guess it's the best thing for now... 卫weizhe哲Talk to me! 00:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's what I did. I moved the rankings to a subsection of Academics called Accolades. I've put such a section in the two other college articles I've put signifcant work into, Vanderbilt and Alabama. This is a place to put ranking of all and any kind and not have it pervade the article. What do you guys think? Ttownfeen 00:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
PS. I moved Student Life into its own section.

I changed "Accolades" to "Rankings" because 1) That's what will be there 2) Accolades could also signify awards, which if we start putting them, would become like the list of Duke University people page in length. and 3) People will know exactly what we are talking about when we write rankings. Hopefully, other schools will begin to follow our lead. Twownfeen, you might want to thange the Vandy and Bama pages too. Tinlash 06:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

Hi, I've added a timeline about more recent events than are covered in the History section to the left side of the page. If you think it's superfluous, ugly, a bad idea in general, etc., feel free to alter it here, or comment on its talk page (or on this talk page) if you have ideas but don't know how to edit it properly. It's possible that the pictures will have to be redistributed to make the layout less confusing. Please add/subtract things to improve it. I think we can continue to elongate it, there's no reason why it has to be restricted to the history section. Also, if anyone knows how to put a buffer between it and the text on the right, please do. 卫weizhe哲Talk to me! 22:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the page

I have been alarmed by the recent wave of changes that appeared to have been posted without a quick "peer review". See [this comparison] for what i mean. the new intro paragraph is excellent, but should be placed in the History of Duke, not as the intro. some aspects should be incorporated, such as the fact of Duke's recent rise to prominence. however, the small tidbits in the rest of the article need to be fact checked. if doubt exists, please revert the tidbit back and cite reference is possible. i am in the midst of working on the intro article myself and will change the tidbits when i have time. in the meanwhile, please keep this article on your watchlists and check for changes. it is much easier to correct them when they occur. -- Bubbachuck 16:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

I have a problem with this paragraph: Moreso than with most elite colleges, Duke's status within academia is unclear. This is due to an number of factors: its location in the south; the success of its sports teams; its rapid endowment growth over the past twenty years; and its having been largely an excellent regional school--rather than a world-class university--as recently as the 1970's. These factors lead the casual observer to assume that Duke's people and programs remain a notch below the top level. Further, its professional schools tend to be more highly rated than its graduate programs, and some of its best-known humanities departments were built with big-name external hires; this tends to lead academics--who do follow rankings closely--to wonder whether Duke's intellectual infrastructure will stand the test of time. Nevertheless, in various ranking systems (including US News and World Report, Duke's undergraduate program is annually ranked in the top 5-7 within a "top dozen" that consists entirely of Ivies, Stanford, Cal Tech, and MIT. Many of its graduate and professional programs are similarly ranked. While of relatively recent vintage, Duke's status within academia appears secure. The beginning of this paragraph seems to be based on speculation. How do we know what the casual observer thinks? If there are some sort of references that could be added here, that would be great. That the professional schools are more highly rated than graduate programs might be true, but the analysis about academics and what they think is unfounded... unless there are some references here. And as for the last part about US News rankings, I thought it had previously been established that there was some "movement" to either just state the rank and avoid comparisons with other schools because of the yearly changing of the rankings, etc, or just omit it because there are lots of rankings, not just one. So I just took out the whole paragraph until some of these issues could be resolved or if the original author could provide some explanation as to the source of his/her information. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, only proven facts are suitable. 卫weizhe哲 15:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


reasonable points. In regards to the uncertainty in its place in the hierarchy, I guess I'd reference the discussion at the bottom of this page. Many casual observers are annually surprised when Duke is ranked 5th in US News, but the reasons for their surprise are, indeed, speculative. I don't think there is a definitive guide to such things, but is there any real doubt that geography, newness, and basketball success contribue to the idea that Duke doesn't rank up there with the Ivies?

I'm not sure whether rankings should be mentioned in an encyclopedia, but, when I look through the entries for a variety of elite colleges, they always mention numbers rankings to their advantage and not-so-subtle links to other elite colleges. If that is the standard, then Duke's rankings should get a mention. And if Duke's rankings are mentioned, I think it's reasonable to include some sort of discussion of Duke's relatively unique and mildly controversial place among much older colleges.

It's the usual tradeoff between dispassionate standards and boosteristic enthusiasm, but I'd be happy if someone else would like to rewrite the intro paragraph to Duke to include or explicitely exclude rankings. august 23


Pictures

There are entirely too many pictures on this page. It's making the article look very cluttered. Ttownfeen 21:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think pictures are important. If you think this article has a lot, see Boston College. But honestly, I really think they lend weight to the article. We want these articles to be as informative as possible, and photographs, etc. are an important part of that. Gregw824 05:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
both points are good. The article looks cluttered but the pictures are important. I think resizing/removing the pictures might reduce clutter somewhat. Bubbachuck 15:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Gregw824; the added pictures are very informative and interesting. However, I think that redistributing the photos will help the article look less cluttered.
Pictures, when peppered sparingley, accentuate articles. When too many are used, the pictures themselves distract the reader from the most important part of the article: the article itself. The Duke article is luckily not as bad as the BC article. I should note that I think many of the pictures are good. I believe that taking a few of the least pertinenet ones (like the Les Diables Bleus pic) would greatly improve the article. Ttownfeen 23:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Really? I think the Les Diables Bleus picture is one of the most interesting in the article. The only change I would make is to place the picture of Epworth in The Move To Durham underneath the picture of The Washington Duke Building, or vice-versa, so the writing at the top of the article is less squished. JTM 00:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I would take out bluedevilportrait.jpg, one of the pictures in east campus and west campus subsections, dukeconstruction.jpg or aerialdukewest.jpg, The Chornicle logo (it has its on page). And just so that you know that I can give as much as I take, the alumni photos can be taken out if need be. Ttownfeen 03:56, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Related pages that need to be added too

Added to the Fuqua page. Needs to be checked and pics need to be added. Tinlash 05:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Created a page. Needs to be checked and pics need to be added. Tinlash 03:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • On a related note, I just added 杜克大学 in the Chinese Wikipedia, 我的中文不太好，请帮助我！卫weizhe哲 09:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the Crazies invented the term airball. Also, I know that SI ranked the Duke/UNC game at Cameron to be the #1 sporting event. We should add some pictures of students tenting and the cameron crazies in action. Similarly, we should add some information about how it all began with the Bunch of Guys, I think. Tinlash 18:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right. They did invent "Airball" according to Four Corners: How UNC, N.C. State, Duke, and Wake Forest Made North Carolina the Center of the Basketball Universe by Joe Menzer. JTM 22:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The Chick Hearn page asserts that Chick invented that one. I have no idea what the truth of the matter is. That would be a good on efor some enterprising soul to investigate. Wahkeenah 04:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Urban?

I am perplexed by the description of the Duke Campus as "urban" on the information box. The campus comprises 9,432 acres, much of which are forest, and the campus itself (with the arguable exception of East) is totally isolated from downtown Durham. Even the section of town that borders East Campus seems like it would be best described as "suburban." Considering UNC, a much more urban-feeling school, is described as suburban, and the College Board describes Duke's campus as suburban, I'm going to change it for now, though I'm open to any arguments for keeping it "urban." JTM 19:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I would say it depends on whether you regard Durham as a real "city" or not. Are you defining Durham as a "suburb" of Raleigh? That's kind of a stretch. I wonder why either "urban" or "suburban" is even necessary. It's located in a city. That's a fact. Calling it some form of "urban" is, in a way, a Point Of View. Wahkeenah 23:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Wahkeenah's view on this. You can't define Duke as suburban because it's IN a city, the fourth largest in North Carolina, not partially in it, but completely surrounded by it, and in fact East Campus is in a densely populated area within a couple minutes walking distance from downtown Durham. Therefore, I'm going to change it back to Urban (and also, you can't simply separate "campus" from "campus area" in the infobox, the templates don't work that way, you'll notice that "campus area" won't show up). The reason UNC is described as suburban is because Chapel Hill has less than 50,000 residents; Durham has almost 190,000. Gregw824 03:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether an area is suburban or not has nothing to do with the population of the city it resides in. Mesa, Arizona has more than 400,000 residents, but is considered a suburb, and the largest cities in the country have suburban districts - such as Staten Island in New York, and Canoga Park and Toluca Lake in LA. I'm not saying Durham is a suburb of Raleigh, just that Duke is in a suburban section of Durham. Though I understand where you're coming from, I'm still inclined to agree with the College Board [1] that Duke's campus is suburban, but since I'm outnumbered, I'll leave it as it is :-). By the way, nice job on all the recent additions to the history and construction sections! They really add a lot to the page. Best, JTM 21:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

More NPOV needed

The opening paragraph needs a lot of work.

1) "...more open to innovation than its more ancient peers" -no schools in the US are ancient

2) "Duke values reevaluation and reimagination" -new buildings just means the school is expanding

3) "friendlier, more energetic" -friendlier b/c its in the south? -I don't see where "energetic" is coming from

These are all very subjective statements. And admissions to Duke, although competitive, is still ~25% which is much higher than most of the Ivy Leagues. This does not imply that Duke is worse or better, but some serious objectivism is in order. Bubbachuck 21:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

ok

I agree with you on most points:

1.) a.) The phrase "ancient peers" refers mostly to the Ivy League, which is also known as the "The Ancient Eight" so that's where that comes from.

2.) Yes perhaps that phrase needs fixing. The new building projects are significant, however.

3.) I agree with your assessment of this phrase, I don't know where it came from, but I also think it doesn't really belong.

4.) The admissions rate this year was 22%, yes, higher than all but one of the Ivy League, but that number in and of itself is not completely indicative of the admissions difficulty. You need to take into account self-selectivity/applicant pool, etc. I think most sources would put Duke in the top 10-15 most difficult schools in the country to be accepted to, Princeton Review puts it in the top 10, for example, and for a country that has 3000+ schools, I would definitely say that is considered very competitive. The term "competitive" in college admissions usually refers to schools that accept under 50% of their applicant pool so I don't think the current wording is really a stretch. Gregw824 04:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

  • good discussion, will fix discussed points Bubbachuck 04:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

athletics

I see someone added a whole lot of basketball players to the list, which is good, but should we do this? If boozer and battier are up there, we should go ahead and add dunleavy, cherokee parks, and dahntay jones... and what about all the other player whose jerseys were reitred? The list goes on, but should we limit this somehow? Also, I'm adding Alana Beard and Jenny Chuasiriporn to the list hello

Drunkasian 17:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it's difficult to know where to draw the line. I would argue that we shouldn't add people to the list of distinguished alumni unless and until an article is written about them. Wmahan. 18:27, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

---Perhaps it would be best to only include people who were famous AFTER attending Duke Univeristy. In other words, it makes sense to include Grant Hill since he became a major NBA player, but not Chris Duhon who didn't go into the NBA. Otherwise, I would only add a non-NBA player when that player is especially notable. Perhaps a separate section (or even article) about Duke basketball is in order.

Actually, Chris Duhon did go to the NBA. He was a second round draft pick for the chicago bulls and is doing quite well. Esrogs 04:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As of July, 2005, Duhon is about to sign a $12 million NBA contract; not chump change. Elton Brand is probably the best NBA player from among the former Duke stars.

Copyright

I reverted several paragraphs of text posted by User:Xwillx that appear to be copied straight from [2]. If we have permission to use the text, feel free to reinstate it.

Also, I have some reservations about the logo that Xwillx added to the article; see the image description page for details. Wmahan. 22:14, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

Chris Duhon did go on to play in the NBA, for the Chicago Bulls as their starting point guard, and even took them to the playoffs.

Location

Do you expect everyone, even non-Americans, do know where Duke University is? (It's hard enough to find the address on their own web site.) <KF> 16:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The infobox says the location is "Durham, North Carolina, NC, USA"; the "NC" should be removed. <Anirvan> 05:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the "NC". For something as trivial and uncontroversial as this, you should just Be Bold and make the recommended change. –MementoVivere 20:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Add discussion about K-Ville, Cameron Crazies, etc

We should try and add some discussion about K-Ville, Cameron Crazies, etc. I know there's a stub about the Cameron Crazies, but it should be added to. I think the Crazies invented the term airball. Also, I know that SI ranked the Duke/UNC game at Cameron to be the #1 sporting event. We should add some pictures of students tenting and the cameron crazies in action. Similarly, we should add some information about how it all began with the Bunch of Guys, I think. Tinlash


Students' POV on the K-Ville and Cameron Crazies

K-Ville(Krzyzewski-ville):

This little tent community has become highly organized in recent years, and Duke administration rather likes to have it to point to as an example of Duke’s “coolness.” Duke students still line up to get into it, though. It requires registration, scheduling, tent checks, and sitting for long hours in the bitter cold. However, there are some perks—free pizzas, meeting the basketball players, and some pretty darn good basketball seats. When the temperature dips below freezing K-Ville, campers are granted “grace” and allowed to head back home for the rest of the night.

Cameron Crazies:

What Duke students morph into, as soon as they enter Cameron Indoor Stadium.

from the College Prowler guidebook, Duke University - Off the Record

Prestige

Is calling Duke "prestigious" POV? I removed the word from the intro, but Drunkasian pointed out that "Other university pages have the same word". I think one could make a good argument either way. I note that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are described as prestigious in their articles, although Stanford and MIT are not. There is a related discussion at Encyclopaedia Britannica.

What do others think? I'll leave the word in unless a consensus is reached otherwise. I don't feel strongly either way, although I'm wary of a situation in which there is a rush to label every university as "prestigious", thereby rendering the term nearly useless. Wmahan. 22:42, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

Rankings Discussions

Since Omnibus revised the order of schools (that I based on the 2005 U.S. News & World Report rankings) in the statement "It is consistently ranked by U.S. News & World Report in the top-10 most selective schools among Harvard, Princeton, UPenn, Yale, Stanford, and MIT," I've decided to investigate the rankings from the past few years. From what I've gathered, these are the ranks for the relevant schools for the years 1998, 2002, and 2005:

  • Princeton (1 in 1998, 1 in 2002, 1 in 2005)
  • Harvard (1 in 1998, 2 in 2002, 1 in 2005)
  • Yale (1 in 1998, 2 in 2002, 3 in 2005)
  • MIT (4 in 1998, 5 in 2002, 5 in 2005)
  • Stanford (4 in 1998, 6 in 2002, 5 in 2005),
  • UPenn (6 in 1998, 6 in 2002, 4 in 2005),
  • Duke (6 in 1998, 8 in 2002, 5 in 2005),
  • Caltech (9 in 1998, 4 in 2002, 8 in 2005)
  • Dartmouth (10 in 1998, 9 in 2002, 9 in 2005)
  • Columbia (10 in 1998, 10 in 2002, 9 in 2005)
  • Cornell (6 in 1998, 10 in 2002, 14 in 2005)
  • Northwestern (10 in 1998, 13 in 2002, 11 in 2005)
  • Brown (10 in 1998, 15 in 2002, 13 in 2005)
  • UChicago (14 in 1998, 10 in 2002, 14 in 2005)

Therefore I propose the order: Princeton, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, UPenn, and Caltech
vs. Omnibus's order: Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Caltech, and MIT.

--MementoVivere 09:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • That sounds like it was written by a Duke University alumni. Let me assure you that Duke does not belong in the same category as Stanford or MIT. The statement in the subject line is very vague. I would propose removing it entirely or altering it significantly to be much more specific.
Here are the U.S. News & World Report rankings for Duke, Stanford, and MIT over the past decade. (Please feel free to add any missing information)
  • 1994: Duke (7th)
  • 1995: Duke (6th)
  • 1996: Duke (6th)
  • 1997: Duke (4th), MIT (6th)
  • 1998: Duke (3rd), Stanford (5th), MIT (6th)
  • 1999: Duke (6th), Stanford (4th), MIT (4th)
  • 2000: Duke (7th), Stanford (6th), MIT (3rd)
  • 2001: Duke (8th), Stanford (6th - two way tie), MIT (5th)
  • 2002: Duke (8th), Stanford (5th - three way tie), MIT (5th - three way tie)
  • 2003: Duke (4th), Stanford (4th), MIT (4th)
  • 2004: Duke (5th), Stanford (5th), MIT (4th)
  • 2005: Duke (5th), Stanford (5th), MIT (5th)
In none of these years was Duke located more than one position away from Stanford or MIT. Duke was rated higher than MIT and Stanford in 1997 and 1998, and over the past three years it was tied with either MIT or Stanford. This to me would argue that Duke is in the same peer group as these other two schools. — Brim 22:44, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
OK -- factually you are correct. But the fact that Duke alumni feel a need to point this out almost reinforces the impression that Duke is NOT truly in this peer group. After all, nobody says Stanford is ranked along with MIT because everyone knows that. Similarly, nobody says that Harvard or Yale are ranked along MIT, or whatever, because this is widely known. If you have to point out that Duke is ranked along with these other universities, it implies that this fact is not well known, which raises the question as to WHY it is not known. Perhaps because unlike US News, most people do not really perceive Duke as being in the same tier?
I agree with you that the statement that Duke is "ranked along with such universities as Stanford and MIT" contributes very little and should be deleted. It's more accurate to say that Duke is a top-ranked national university. Making the comparison to MIT and Stanford is pointless. Why single out those two schools? But as for Duke not truly being in the peer group mentioned above, that's your opinion, and you'll find that many would disagree with you. Most everybody knows Duke's reputation in this day and age, and Duke is widely recognized as being one of the top institutions in this country, in the same tier as the list of universities quoted previously. Perhaps this was not true a decade ago, however, where--outside of college basketball--Duke was relatively unknown outside its region. Duke has become more recognizable over the past ten years, associated with its ranking going up. Duke is in a unique position being one of the few top-notch academic institutions in the South, whereas Stanford is similarly unique being the flagship academic region of the West Coast. They have a few other similarities, such as the importance of intervarsity athletics at each of the schools, but otherwise, they're geographically distinct schools that don't directly compete against each other. I'm a Duke alumnus, and I never encountered Stanford-envy, or even MIT-envy, since each of the schools attract a different sort of students. I wouldn't directly compare Stanford and MIT, just like I wouldn't directly compare Stanford and Duke. However, I do think that most would agree that all three are elite universities and that any attempt to further stratify them (a la U.S. News) is hardly valid and is largely based on opinion and bias. — Brim 07:01, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Let me assure you that duke is not in the same league as Stanford and MIT. US News rankings should not be referenced to claim this, as US News only represents a single ranking that many argue is completely irrelevant. duke is not known at all outside of the US. I'm from Singapore, where I know that virtually nobody had duke on their "top list" of choices. That was the exclusive domain of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford. duke was nowhere to be seen. To further illustrate this point, ask anyone what they know about Stanford, for example. People know that Stanford is in California, in Silicon Valley. They know Stanford is known for its medical school, for its engineering programs (EE and CS), for physics, chemistry, and that Stanford is also known for outstanding programs in the liberal arts. Nobody has a clue what duke is good at. In fact, I live in the US, and if I had not read this Wikipedia article, I would have NO IDEA where duke is even located. What is duke know for? I have never heard of anyone praising duke's engineering program. The only context in which I have heard of duke's medical school is with the hydraulic fluid scandal, where their hospital staff washed surgery instruments in hydraulic fluid. I mean seriously, I have no idea what else duke is even known for. -(name???)
I reverted it back to simply the USNews ranking. Firstly, I think we should only use current rankings, not rankings from previous years, unless we're listing a lot of them. Secondly, the article does not say that Duke is in the same league as Stanford and MIT. It simply states what the USNews rankings say. Most people consider these to the be the most prominent college rankings and thus they are used by almost every other college in their wiki. Tinlash 14:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, now you know. That's what Wikipedia is for. Ttownfeen 16:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • With no disrespect to the international dissenters here, but Duke is an American university, thus the most important ranking and opinion is that of American newspapers and residents. International prestige is the result of national prestige...after all, Harvard and IIT had to become famous in their respective countries first. And to the anonymous Stanford supporters that are writing here, I doubt "everyone" knows that Stanford is all those things...in fact, I'm positive that only a student there could know all the minutia that was presented (outstanding EE & CE, physics, chemistry, liberal arts program, medical school...what isn't it known for?? underachieving basketball teams? but i digress). But perhaps I am mistaken, I live in the east you know. You are probably from the west coast, thus you know a lot about Stanford. People living in the south know a lot about Duke so lets leave it at that. Again, international opinion is a tertiary (at least) with respect to American universities. And I agree that Duke is not well known yet in the international community, but there are many many international students here and I'm sure its name recognition is growing. In case the reader above was wondering, Duke is known for its #2 Biomedical Engineering program. To show some NPOV here, I like the ECE program better. In any case, I removed any reference to ranking AT ALL because I agree it is fluctuating and very subjective (possibly influenced by politics, though I have no proof), and because i noticed other schools taking them down as well. So dissenters, you may claim some semblance of victory -- Bubbachuck 18:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
How about we have a separate section for rankings? We can list any major rankings and what Duke is ranked at. Or, we can just use actual data like selectivity, endowment, etc. Stuff that no one can argue about. Tinlash 19:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Duke Divinity School

Should the Divinity School be on the Duke University page or be it's own separate page? I was surprised that no one had/has added that on there. - JpB

the main article is fairly lengthy already. since the Divinity School is a graduate school it is notable enough to justify its own page. -- Bubbachuck 15:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Graduation rates

Here's a reference for the latest edit - http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/gsr2005/193.pdf

template in template

The reference template in the infobox template is probably what is killing the numbering. That's the only reason I can think of. --Ttownfeen 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal

Trying to keep this story out of the article, are we? Haizum 05:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be cautious about adding news about this. Honestly I think people just haven’t thought about editing it in, rather than out of censorship. I looked at the history of the page and no info seems to have ever been added about the rape in the first place, which leads me to believe nobody has bothered or thought about it yet. Anyway, this would qualify as a current event first off so I don’t know if it goes in the Duke article or the current events section, and if you were to add this topic it would absolutely necessary to keep any speculation or rumors out of it and present the topic fairly. At risk of causing offense, people get easily offended here. It is easy to go POV on this kind of thing or be misleading. Sifaka 06:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the below which was copied verbatem from the guidlines in Wikipedia News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples. Sifaka 06:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Update. Someone just mentioned it, but the edits were vandalistic in nature so they got deleted. Edit history 07:41, 30 March 2006 152.3.72.193 (→Athletics) I don't think vandals count. Sifaka 07:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a similar pattern of behavior among the nation's elite schools; mainly a pattern of elitism that leads to incidents like this- ones that are not simply isolated events. That would surely be another article, but this would definitely deserve to be mentioned if such an article was created. Haizum 11:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Duly noted. Sifaka 16:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
While news itself is not covered, article are frequently kept up to date and there is nothing wrong with including current events in an encylopedic manner. Note if you visit links mentioned in current events you will usually find the even itself is also mentioned in at least one of the relevant article. The issue of how much to cover is a more tricky issue. Since this is quite a big and complicated controversy, I feel it should be covered in detail. Note that if you visit many other articles about recent controversies they too are usually covered in significant detail. I have added a section accordingly. I feel it might be better to move it to a seperate article but I'll leave that to some one else. Really I only came here to see what the article here said about it and was shocked when I found it was not mentioned. I am not an American and don't intend to be involved in it much further. Hopefully others will take on the job. However I will monitor this page and if it is unceremoniasly removed or cut down too much I real demand an explaination. Nil Einne 20:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
That was a couple days ago. As of now, solid evidence (an email for sure, but I am not sure if DNA results are out publicly, because they said it would be private) has been found and warrants have been placed. Before there was a lot of speculation. I think it would be more appropriate for it to have its own page. I would like to move it but I would like to have some consensus. Other colleges' wikipages don't have controversies listed, so it breaks the status quo per se. I would like to make a motion to move the section to its own page with a title like Duke University Lacrosse Rape Scandal (2006). Then I would like to change the wikinews to that page and at the top of the Duke University Page where disambig normally goes "For information about the Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal go here" or something like that. Can we have a vote? Sifaka 04:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC) ***Note I am crossing this out as soon as I figure out how to do strike through. I changed article to include controversies section*** Sifaka 04:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No other universities list controversies, yet many universities have had controversies. There hasn't even been an indictment in this case. Students from other schools who have been convicted of crimes are not mentioned in the Wikipedia pages for those schools. It is absolutely ridiculous to have this section on the Duke page. Xwillx 23:30, 15 April, 2006 (EST)

As the Wikipedian who moved what was a large section overwhelming Duke's page, I agree that giving undue weight to this controversy is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. However, looking at another university like Harvard or Yale I think it fair to say that although there are no sections called Controversy as with Duke's, the articles have a relatively comparable amount of information on criticisms and controversy. Yale has a small paragraph on the admission of Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, for example, while Harvard has a paragraph on how homosexuals were discriminated against in the 1920s. Particularly since people may be looking for information about this on Duke's page, I think it appropriate to have the small mention that we have now in some form at least. Anagrammarian 04:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is Coack K???

I would have to imagine, undoubtedly, that most people think of Coach K when they think of Duke. No matter the reason, there should be a picture about him and more of what he has done for their program and for their university. BigMar992 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has enough images as it is. Plus, he has his own article. That article could use a press photo, however. --Ttownfeen 02:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Biased passage on lacrosse case.

Read this passage again:

"Early evidence indicates that this incident may be a fabricated incident similar to the Tawana Brawley incident. Unfortunately, the members of the Duke University lacrosse team have been vilified in the media prior to an unbiased, thorough investigation."

"Indicates" to whom? The physical evidence available to the public at this point doesn't indicate anything. And members of the lacrosse team have been "vilified?" Massive media exposure of the players doesn't isn't vilification or lionization. It's just massive media exposure.--Pinko1977 05:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, the media completely jumped on them in a negative way. Extensive discussion with third parties unrelated to Duke or NCCU or North Carolina in general say the media portrayed them as guilty, or at best unfairly. It really was villification. Sifaka talk 21:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Move Lacrosse Controversy?

I think we should move the "Lacrosse Rape Scandal (2006)" section to its own page, giving just a brief synopsis on the Duke page. This would put it more in line with other similar articles. Having the controversy take up such a large space on the Duke page, hurts the quality of the article. (There are also some NPOV problems with the passage as it stands. Moving this whole discussion onto a separate page would help isolate this as well.) Thoughts? Anagrammarian 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the length of this section is now quite ridiculous, probably meriting its own page and just a brief mention on the Duke page. Especially since in the history of Duke university, this event is not the single most significant - yet it takes up more space than anything else by far.

I think its significant enough to be a part of the page. It ties into the college's history of inclination towards white male priviledge. Creating its own page seems to me like escapism or playing down the whole incident.

The article should briefly mention the scandal. However, it should not overwhelm this article. A new breakout article should be created to document all the information. Pepsidrinka 17:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Major problems with images, most don't has source information especially the PD ones, needs a source on why those images are PD and does it qualify for it. Same with the GFDL images, they need a source. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have no idea what the above sentence means. How do I fix whatever problems there were with the images. I'd like to send this back for GA nomination soon.Tinlash 15:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed all the tags that said they were PD, changing to the proper ones. Also, I provided a source for all of the pictures. As well as making numerous additions to the article, it should be able to qualify for GA now. The image information before was quite awful now that I looked at it. PD=public domain, btw. --Bluedog423

Lacrosse scandal moved to new page

Following advice from the sysop community, I've moved the majority of information from the lacrosse scandal to a new page because it was taking up too much space on Duke's page. Please take most of your edits on that topic there. Thanks! Anagrammarian 19:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete removal of scandal information from the article

Anons, presumably faculty from Duke, have been insisting on removing this section entirely from the article: [3]. While I agree with part of the edit summary that states that wonderful and educational things do happen at Duke, since the paragraph on the scandal is on a current and nationally notable event, and since it conforms to Wikipedia's verifiability and NPOV policies, I suggest that it should stay. Antandrus (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The information is noteworthy, but rather than having a summary on this page, would it be better to merely have "For information about the rape allegations, see 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal", possibly where a disambiguation notice would go, or under a "See also"? Andjam 00:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree per above. Other school pages do not have scandals on their pages. Sifaka talk 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Politics and geography?

Prestigious institutions have a reputation for being liberal. But Duke appears to be an exception. First, Bill Clinton supported Arkansas against Duke in the '94 title game. Second, you don't hear about liberal professors from Duke (I've seen one law professor who strongly believes in anti-trust law). Third, Duke has troubled relations with the Durham community. And you notice that Hannity and Limbaugh are coming to the defense of the lacrosse team. So, is Duke a conservative institution? Someone mention about politics. Plus, it seems like there are more students from New York and New Jersey than from the home state of North Carolina. Can somebody check out state and country representation at the institution, too? -Amit


Duke is considered liberal to nearly everybody who goes here and is associated with it. The Conservative Party at Duke always talks about how the professors are overwhelmingly associated with the Democratic Party, and recently David Horowitz came to Duke to talk about "dangerous professors." That is, those with a "liberal agenda" and in his book he names a few Duke professors. The student body, likewise, I would say leans more towards the liberal side. In regard to the geographic representation, I can't find exact state numbers, but for the Class of 2009, 13% come from North Carolina, while 15% from the Northeast (including NY) and 13% from the mid-atlantic (including NJ). [4] For the class of 2008 and 2007, the only 3 states that had more than 100 students were NY, FL, and NC. So they are both well represented. The states with 50-100 students were CA, GA, IL, MD, NJ, PA, TX, VA. So that's pretty geographically diverse I'd say. Bluedog423 20:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Bluedog423 in that Duke is considered liberal to the people who go there, however, it's not nearly as much so as other institutions like it. As far as the student body goes, it's fairly well mixed. I wouldn't go so far as to call it conservative - its just seen that way because its in the South. Jcp20 22:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Richard Nixon and Liddy Dole went there. Nuff said.  :) -Jcbarr 23:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Affiliation with United Methodist Church

Is Duke still affiliated with the Methodist Church? It was my impression that the answer is "no." I understand that originally it was founded by and provided eduation for Methodists, but I think this affiliation is no longer active. I can't find anywhere on Duke's website that they are still currently affiliated. Rather, there are plenty of places that say they "were" affiliated. Even the divinity school says it's non-demonational. Unless somebody can prove that Duke is still currently affiliated, I am deleting this category. One place I see it is on the Princeton Review website, but I think they are wrong and just haven't updated it.

quality of images

Looking at Michigan State University, a recently featured Featured Article, and comparing it to our own article, the most striking difference to me wasn't the difference in quantitiy of the images, but the quality. Each photo on that page is rich and vibrant, whereas most of the images here are either historiacal pictures, logos, or stock photography. We definitely need to make an effort to add better-quality images to the article.

--Ttownfeen 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll attempt to replace current photos with similar ones of higher quality over the next week or so. Also, I may add a few more. Let me know what you think of them.

--Bluedog423

Hey Ttownfeen. I understand why you put the CIEMAS and Divinity school pic on the same (right) side of the screen as I did originally (I thought it looked better on my laptop monitor). However, then when I moved over to my 20" monitor, I noticed that half of the CIEMAS picture was to the right of "Athletics" and the entire Divinity school pic was also seemingly under the athletics section instead of under "Recent and upcoming construction projects". The size of the screen allows for a great more deal of text per line, while the images stay the same size, thus changing their position depending on the size of the monitor. So, this is more of a general wikipedia policy question / a question of aesthetics. Are the articles just supposed to be most aesthetically pleasing for as many people as possible? If so, what's the average side of a monitor? I changed them to be on opposite sides because it made the section look substantially better on the 20" monitor, while only somewhat hampering the quality of the article on the laptop monitor (15"?). I know this is somewhat of a minor issue, but just curious as to how to approach the same problem in the future. Thanks.

I understand what you mean. My laptop using both Firefox and IE (both most recent versions) render the web page well but some desktops and other laptops don't. I really don't know why that is. It seems to be more an issue with the browsers than the code, so the place to address this issue is somewhere else. I just dont know where. --Ttownfeen 17:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Undergraduate Scholarships and TIP

I don't think these two topics deserve their own section. The article is long enough as it is, and something that only affects about 3% of the undergraduate student body (scholarships) may deserve mentioning and a link to its own wikipedia article, but not a detailed rundown. Additionally, TIP, which affects only faculty at Duke and younger children may merit mentioning and a link to its own wikipedia article, but not its own paragraph. This should leave space for other more important things such as a profile of the student body and a research section under academics. --Bluedog423

I went ahead and made the new article as well as getting rid of TIP's own section (although still mention and link it). Sorry if I am being too bold w/ revisions without consulting others. In general, I am attempting to emphasize the most important aspects of Duke, while organizing the article more clearly. Please discuss or even revert if there is some edit you disagree with. --Bluedog423

The Roberston Scholars Program was deleted from Wikipedia. The main reason was that "every scholarship program doesn't merit a page". I see that we have a B.N. Scholars page, which people may delete. Instead of having separate pages for all of our scholarships, why don't we put them all into one page? Thoughts? Tinlash 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, I have already done that like I said. "I went ahead and made the new article," I wrote. It's in the article Undergraduate scholarships at Duke University. I think the B.N. Duke Scholars program might merit its own page just because on that particular page there is a lot of detailed information and it is quite lengthy. Other pages, such as the Baldwin Scholars page should be deleted unless somebody wants to expand it greatly. All the main articles related to Duke can be seen at the bottom of the page as a template or by going to template:dukeschools in case you didn't see that before. --Bluedog423


Wikimedia Commons article

Add new media to Duke University. Thanks!

Looks good, bluedog

You've done an outstanding job significantly filling out the article. I've nominally looked over the article as you've edited and some small edits. The article looks great to me. The next step is submit the article for peer review and see where things go from there. --Ttownfeen 17:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the compliments. It's nice to know that my efforts were not for naught. An ultimate goal would be to become a featured article. The two schools that have already done that are Michigan State University and University of Michigan. Although since they have already set the bar, we would have to exceed that. Cornell University is also an article that is particularly strong (definitely more detailed/more article links than this one), so obtaining this goal could take a while. --Bluedog423 06:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering if somebody could fix the problem with rendering on IE for Template:Dukeschools. I don't know how. On Firefox it looks great, but on IE the Duke border does not extend all the way to the sides, leaving ugly white space. Maybe there's no way to fix it, and IE users just have suffer some more as they already do.Bluedog423 17:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Princeton Review Rankings

I remember that Duke was ranked until recently the most homophobic college in the United States by the Princeton Review. In reaction to that, Duke students organized a t-shirt event /day every year to dispell that notion. I think it would be notable to include that in the "Student organization and activity" section.--Bud 08:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Duke was rated in the Top 10 of most homophobic colleges by the Princeton Review until last year's rankings, if memory serves me correctly. Now, Duke is not ranked at all in that category. Students organized a "Gay? Fine by me" t-shirt campaign, but that lasted only one time. It also wasn't a direct reaction to the Princeton Review rankings as far as I know. I think you could find similar events at schools like Berkeley, famous for its liberal stance. Other annual campaigns such as "anti-sexual assault week" are more notable since they occur every year (and have a series of events), and those types of events should be added before the t-shirt factoid is added. However, a mentioning of the LGBT center could be added (it is in the caption of the West Union building already). Bluedog423 15:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
There was also a "Bush? Not fine by me" knockoff campaign a year later (as in President Bush). Bluedog423 15:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When was this on the GA nomination page?

Nobody seems to of reviewed it and I can't see in the nomination page history when this was ever there, was this page ever properly listed on the GA nomination page? Homestarmy 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It was put on the nomination page 7 days ago. In the page history, 01:13, 12 June 2006 Tinlash (→Long articles). User:BubbaGump passed it, but didn't delete it from the GA nominations page. So I deleted it. If you think it shouldn't be passed, you can delist it.--152.3.80.248 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
But did anybody ever review it, did the database or something delete the review? Homestarmy 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea. I'll put it up for a review since it seems like BubbaGump or whomever is new and didn't write anything about it. Someone should review it instead of just putting good article tag up. --Bluedog423

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because no review could be found

--Bluedog423

Mmm, to be honest, reviews aren't usually a part of the GA process, unless the passing member has some extra time, or wants to address some specific issues with the article. The GA program is meant to elevate quality articles to a visible status in a quick and unbureaucratic way. There are a LOT of good articles out there that aren't noticed because they aren't quite at FA status, but are still in good shape. The GA program emphasizes speed, which is why articles elevated to GA often do not receive comprehensive reviews. The Duke article is good, who can deny that? If complex reviews were needed for every 'passing' of nomination, then the GA program would quickly develop a backlog, and reviewer time would be sucked from the FA program into the GA program, deafeating its purpose.
However, since you want a review, I'll look things over and give you a quick one based on the qualifications of the GA program, and relist the article as a Good Article (which it clearly is, based on my cursory evaluation).
Comparing it to University of Michigan, a FA, leads me to believe that Duke University is probably about ready for review as a FA. If you want a more complex review, you should list it for peer review. Its a long waiting list, but most people would rather review something like this than an article about a video game or something, so you should receive quicker responses. Phidauex 04:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! Bluedog423 05:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes:

Duke University: This article was passed as a good article on June 19 by User:BubbaGump, but no review could be found. It was nominated for a good article on June 12 by User:Tinlash. I have personally contributed a significant amount to the article and think it qualifies as a good article, but didn't want to see it pass without someone at least posting a review.--Bluedog423

This is an odd reason to delist the article. Typically someone who has contributed significantly to the article shouldn't be the one listing or delisting. Reviews aren't always a part of the GA process, especially in cases where the article in question is not 'borderline'. I'll go over the article for you and give you my impressions, but I'm also going to relist it as a Good Article in the meantime. Phidauex 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've given some time to reviewing the article (check its talk page). Hopefully this helps the editors out. I've also relisted it as a GA, which is clearly is. If this is satisfactory, User:Bluedog423, feel free to archive this dispute. If you have any other concerns, let us know. Phidauex 05:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Good Article Review

As requested, here are some impressions I have on this article, and the basis for which I've listed it as a Wikipedia:Good article.

1. Well written?

Yes! The writing is clear, and the number of spelling and grammar errors are below my threshold of notice. The lead paragraphs are a touch long, perhaps, but do not seem to contain any cruft, so I wouldn't worry about it. They hit the main points of 'why do we care about Duke?'

Good structure. Some sections are a little long. It may be time for a History of Duke University article, for instance. However, this isn't severe. Other daughter articles have been created in appropriate places, with good use of the summary technique.

2. Factually accurate?

Seems to be, yes! 51 external references is impressive. Many are URLs, which is bad. But most of the URLs are primary sources, and are unbroken links, which is good! In particular, I appreciate that bold claims about impressive statistics are backed up with copious references. Student life section is a bit under referenced, but I can understand why.

3. Broad in coverage?

Yes. All major sections seem to be well filled out, and supported with daughter articles where applicable.

4. NPOV?

Generally, yes! It seems like some big issues have been recently fixed, which I like seeing. There is some mild POV in the Student Life section regarding students feelings about alcohol policies and social life. Any references (even from the student paper?) that could help explain some of these feelings? More serious issues, like finances, history, and academics seem to be properly neutral.

5. Stable?

Appears to be. No major active disputes.

6. Images?

Well imaged and infographic'd. It seems some image problems have been resolved regarding fair use rationales and PD tagging. I'd still like to see more free licensed images, and less reliance on fair use, but its not a major complaint.

Issues? There are very few, but here are a few small things I noticed that might be worth fixing:

  • Lack of absolute dates in some areas. Example: In the third intro paragraph we see the following sentence: "More projects are planned on both campuses as well as a $240-million overhaul of Central Campus." When are these projects supposed to start? 2007? 2012? Last month? We could check the reference, but if a date is known, it should be noted. That way, when all the current editors die/get jobs/move to a hermitage, and the date passes without update, people can tell right away whether or not work should have begun, or is still coming.
  • Might be time for a History of Duke University daughter article, the section is getting a little long (though not awful).
  • Student Life section is a bit under-referenced, and a bit POV.
  • More free license images would be good. Keep the historical aerial shots, but try to move away from the promotional media with time. Nice day on campus? Take out that nice camera, and go snap a few photos!

I hope this mini-review has helped some. The article definately meet the GA qualifications, and should meet FA qualifications with a bit of work. It has clearly come a long way since its first GA nomination. Phidauex 05:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy Cow! You guys work fast. Since my review scads of new references have been added, particularly in some of the areas of concern, like the student life and greek sections. Keep up the good work! Phidauex 16:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Who put up the FAC nom?

The name doesn't look familiar, so it wasn't one of the regular editors. Maybe it was just a passerby impressived with the article? I don't want to sound like I don't believe the article isn't ready for consideration, but shouldn't we at least put it through peer review first? --Ttownfeen 18:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is somebody who was just a passerby and has not edited the article at all. However, if you look on his talk page, it seems that he has been accepted to Duke so maybe he wants it to have good publicity or something. But I think it would definitely make sense to have a peer review first. It will be interesting to see what people say, though, so keeping it up can't hurt. Also, I don't expect it to pass completely, so I won't be disappointed if it doesn't. --Bluedog423 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, so far so good. Two supports. Bluedog423 22:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? I read through the entire article and thought it was very good both grammatically and structurally. QuizQuick 01:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad you thought so. It's not necessarily that I don't think it's ready, but rather it is usually traditional to do a peer review before submitting it for FA status (at least, according to my understanding). Cornell went through three peer reviews before trying to be a FA. -Bluedog423 01:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
So - is there an outstanding request for a peer-review, or is it too late since it has been nominated for FA? I couldn't find it on the list of PR requests and was thinking that, given that it was suggested, it could be good to have there.DukeEgr93 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the article was nominated for FA status before a PR was done. If the article is elevated to FA status, which appears possible now, there will be no need for a Peer review unless the article fails to keep up the ever-increasing quality expected of FA's and is de-listed (but that's getting ahead of ourselves). --Ttownfeen 04:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

DukeCard

Do any of you think there should be a note about the DukeCards? QuizQuick 01:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

DukeCards are a very important item for Duke students, but not sure it is notable enough to mention in an encyclopedia article. However, if you can find an appropriate place to mention DukeCards briefly, feel free to add it! -Bluedog423 02:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Not sure where to put information about the card - thing is, it gets used by so many different groups (students, staff, alumni, and faculty) for different things (food points, flex, parking, security, etc). But I agree that it probably isn't a unique enough system to Duke for an encyclopedia entry. DukeEgr93 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Military

Since there is at least one person who disagrees - what do people think about including at least Admiral Frank Bowman and General Walter Boomer to the list of alumni on this page? I know they are also on the list of alumni (as is everyone else in the footer), but certainly the head of Naval Nuclear Propulsion (which also made him Asst. Secretary of Energy, for example) and the 2nd in command of Deserts Shield and Storm rate with the CEOs and entertainment personnel. DukeEgr93 22:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the CEO of a corporation is one of the most senior personel in the entire corporation. Wouldn't it's military equivalent be the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff? At the same time, I don't see where a sentence would hurt. The section is already quite longer than it was when it was first created. --Ttownfeen 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
My bias is evident here, but my thought is this: at any given time, there can be no more than 12 four-star Admirals, and then only if one is the Chair or Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs. Admiral Bowman had control over more nuclear reactors than most countries and was in a spot that also gave him a title with the Department of Energy, and so I give that more weight than some CEOs and most entertainers (though I respect, admire, and appreciate the contributions of those who excel in the fields encompassed by the term "entertainment"). I would say that the military equivalent of a CEO should depend on the number of people reporting and the budget of the business in which case - for most medium- to large-businesses - that would be on the order of a one- or two-star Admiral or General. A four-star is in charge of something Huge, equating in business to the kinds of CEOs that are listed on the page and actually have more people reporting than most CEOs. Certainly, the Chiefs of the respective military departments do. But - again - as a Navy person - I have a non-neutral point of view that I need to have checked on this page. DukeEgr93 05:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Alumni

Where did the second row of alumni photos go? --Ttownfeen 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the photos that did not have source information. I added fair use rationales for Ricardo Lagos and Rick Wagoner, but Annabeth Gish, Judy Woodruff, and Grant Hill did not have their source information on the page and I couldn't find the photos via google. So, if you can find their sources and add a fair use rationale, please add them back! I deleted them because the page was up for FA and I knew somebody would comment on that. -Bluedog423 14:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation spot check

As part of this project, I checked a few semi-randomly selected footnotes from this article. Results were as follows:

  1. Footnote 10 (a): "What is known today as Duke University started as Brown's Schoolhouse, a private subscription school founded in 1838 in Randolph County, North Carolina, in the present-day town of Trinity."
    • Checks out. From site: "1838 -- Brantley York (1805-1891) becomes principal of Brown's Schoolhouse, a private subscription school in Randolph County."
  2. Footnote 16: "Research in May 2006 included a blueprint for an invisibility cloak using "metamaterials""
    • Checks out. From site: "John Pendry, along with colleagues David Smith and David Schurig at Duke University in North Carolina, US, have been testing suitable metamaterials for the device they plan to build. This, Sir John explained, would consist of a sphere or cylinder wrapped in a sheath of metamaterial which could cloak it from radio waves."
  3. Footnote 37: "Duke students often refer to the campus as "the Gothic Wonderland," a nickname referring to the Gothic revival architecture of West Campus."
    • Iffy. Site linked to includes the words "gothic wonderland", but no evidence as to the prevalence or origins of the phrase. This is about as small as a problem can be, since it's pretty easy to extrapolate, but a source that discusses the term instead of just using it would be preferable.
  4. Footnote 49: "This requirement is justified by the administration as an effort to help students connect more closely with one another and sustain a sense of belonging within the Duke community."
    • Problem. From site: "Duke University adheres to the premise that the on-campus residential experience is an important part of undergraduate life and education. The university has long been committed to an active and meaningful residential life for its undergraduate students."
      • The justification given on the site linked to, while potentially overlapping with the justification described in the article, does not necessarily imply that the justification in the article is used.
  5. Footnote 70: "Finally, some courses at Duke incorporate service as part of the curriculum in order to augment material learned in class such as in psychology or education courses (known as service learning classes)."
    • Checks out. (No one quote, since entire source article is about this.)

As you can see, no flagrant errors, but it appears that there may be a slight tendency to make statements in the article that are related too but not quite supported by the statements in the sources. --RobthTalk 15:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Great idea! I already fixed the problem with footnote 49 by adding a reference that states "[The] Mission of Residence Life and Housing Services [is to] ... promote opportunities for students to connect with others and develop a strong and enduring sense of belonging" from [5] The gothic wonderland issue might be harder to find.... -Bluedog423 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed Gothic Wonderland citation from quote from here [6]: "The campus of Duke is often referred to as a 'gothic wonderland,' a phrase dimly associated with pointed arches and the central location of the chapel on West Campus." Must be prevelant enough if it makes its way into a course synopsis, right? Other sources that state it are [7] and [8] -Bluedog423 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Chapel photo

I had to replace the previous Chapel photo because it was copyrighted and taken from [9] without any permission. Anyways, someone with a nice camera/good photo skills that is at Duke, try to take a nicer picture than the one I took. It was the best I could do, but I am no longer around. I think in the morning is the best time. The pic I put up was the best one (I thought, at least) from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Duke_University. Image:DukeChapelMorning.jpg is really nice, but the tree is blocking some of it. So if somebody can photoshop that out, that'd be nice too. Thanks! -Bluedog423 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge List of Duke University rankings

I think the only thing to be salvaged from the AfD'd list is the lead. Thoughts? Madcoverboy (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Degree programs at Duke University

Degree programs at Duke University, an article that was split from this one in 2006, has been nominated for deletion. The AfD may result in a recommendation that the material be merged into this article rather than deleted. Should the content be deleted, merged, or kept as a separate article? Baileypalblue (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Deleted. That level of detail is not appropriate for an encyclopedia; anyone interested can go with one click from this article to the University's website (where the information is likely to be kept up to date, as it may not be here). JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duke_University/Archive_1&oldid=1136681405"