This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Question: Why did Alright(?) remove Dessima Williams from the notable professors and staff listing? It would seem to me that the Grenadian Ambassador to the US, when the US invaded the country would be of note. Moreover, how many other Ambassadors to the United Nations are instructors at the University? It also seems to me that at least 10 other names on the list don't yet have his or her own webpage. I'm not gonna re-add her to the list, but it does seem arbitrary to remove her.
A recent edit by an anonymous user removed a claim that Brandeis University is "highly regarded academically" because, as the editor put it, "Brandeis isn't Harvard." I don't believe the claim was that Brandeis University is Harvard; Brandeis was founded because, at the time, Harvard discriminated against Jewish applicants.
Brandeis is academically highly regarded. You may pick up your favorite listing of schools (US News, Peterson's, etc) to find Brandeis highly ranked. It is not Harvard, but then, neither is MIT.
Additionally, Brandeis does have excellent research programs within the fields of Biology, Computer Science, and Physics. I did not say that Brandeis is universally strong in these areas, but that it has world-class research within each of these departments. I'll list the labs and researchers that I am personally familiar with: James Pustejovsky and Jordan Pollack in the Computer Science department, Larry Abbott, Eve Marder, and Michael Rosbach in the Biology department.
-- Zippy 10:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
CTong -- why remove Robert Reich? Did he stop being notable? -- Metahacker 02:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
SAWIT-- I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes, but I've changed the heading to "Notable Current and Former Faculty and Staff." Though a mouthful, the term "faculty" constitutes an important recognition of collegiality and accomplishment. I also added Philip Rahv to the list, since his admission is baffling. Rahv founded Partisan Review and was at the center of an intellectual scene that set the standards for debate over culture and politics during the Cold War. As such he is also an essential figure in the history of Jewish intellectuals in America.
I can't resist adding a more personal look at the school, as I came out of the graduate CS program there. Also, I came from a school that was largely Brandeis' opposite: big, public, tech-oriented school. James P is definitely intelligent, and also seems a bit sad and melancholy - but he does work on something that even he knows will most likely see no huge breakthroughs anytime soon. Jordan Pollack is scatterbrained, has many crazy ideas, a lot of which seem to go nowhere, but it is inspiring that he doesn't give up. He also seems a little discontented, but also seems stubbornly committed to the idea that there *is* an answer, or at least perhaps a well-defined question in the field A-Life. Cherniack is nice. He is one of the more prepared teachers. Overall, it was fun, but I don't think it would be worth the money solely for the education it provides. My experience as a whole at the school was worth it, though, but I did make most of my friends in Heller & IBS, so if you just stick to Comp Sci, you're missing out.
Just because a school is not regarded AS highly in academics as Harvard doesn't mean it's Tijuana Tech. Being a popular Ivy League safety school ain't all that bad and it doesn't mean we're a bunch of dumbasses. I highly disliked nearly all aspects of Brandeis EXCEPT for the one that most of us ultimately (well, presumably) pursue higher education for - quality of education. I genuinely feel the quality of faculty and education outshines what I could have gotten at other institutions, public or private, cheaper or not.
With that said, there is a glaring omission - Brandeis' Heller School and graduate program in Theater are DEFINITELY highly regarded. I think they're the only two graduate programs that make it onto the USNews best grad school list (which is a far more accurate representation of reputation - how highly its REGARDED by peers - than actual quality. But that's for another wiki entry). Since pursuing a career in international/community development, there have been multiple occasions where I was told, "Oh you went to Brandeis? They have an excellent social work school!" or "Their social policy school is top-ranked in the nation!" Anyone who works for an NGO or social service nonprofit - including those not in the US - will likely be familiar with it.
...Maybe some of you will jump down my throat for doing this but I have to agree with whoever said they scratched their head when reading the list of supposedly "notable" alumni. It's a great achievement but I didn't think being a dean or being XYZ Professor of English was really "notable", at least compared to those who have, say, won awards I have heard of (Nobels, Pulitzers, etc.) - on which note, I am SHOCKED that Gina Turrigiano wasn't on the list of notable faculty. Those MacArthur Genius awards are extremely competitive. And no, I never had her as a professor, so I'm not nearly as biased as the person who wrote the original article and decided to stick himself under the notable alumni section. ;)
Obviously we'll have to debate what "notable" means - I personally think being a high-ranking or high-achieving professor doesn't cut it, because then we'd have to add most Brandeis faculty in there. And dudes, if you're gonna put Ben Brandzel up as notable alumni, then my name ought to be on this too. Brandeis alumni make great achievements but we can't ALL be on this list!
Greek History at Brandeis:
Fraternities came to Brandeis in 1986 with the formation of "Brandeis Men for Greeks" lead by Matt Brooks, [currently the excutive director of the National Jewish Republican Coalition] which consisted of over 100 male students. After the initial meeting many national fraternities were contacted as we [I was there] wanted to start a chapter, all EXCEPT AEPi refused as Brandeis was known to be anti frat. So we became the Lambda Beta Chapter of AEPi, with in weeks of the initiation, a group, most consisting of swim team members of AEPi broke off and became a chapter of ZBT. The real reason that frats came to Brandeis was that President Handler in an ill advised attempt to curtail then illegal under age drinking, banned parties on campus. Gov. Dukakis had recently raised the drinking age from 18 to 21. So instead of students some what safely consuming inside the peripheral road where the campus security staff and BEMCO could help someone who over indulged, parties were forced off campus into Waltham where the not so happy residents and Waltham Police dealt with the drunk students....it did wonders for town gown relations, and at that time many blue collar Waltham residents really did not like a bunch of tristate, spoiled kids waking them up at 3 am....and being 20+ years older now, I empathize.....so that is the real history, and it should be included as a cleaned up foot note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.63.52 ( talk) 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I feel this page should be kept in a manner where it accurately states that the school does not recognize fraternities or sororities, including their reasons why, but does say which organizations claim members at the school. I think this would be best in the spirit of wikipedia, giving a NPOV to the article. Jihad cowboy 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Brandeis Student Life
I've seen you (Alight) edited the student life section on the main Brandeis page to remove reference to greek life on campus. Would it be more accurate to state that while the school doesn't recognize them, that certain organizations claim members there? Jihad cowboy 18:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC) == Not really, otherwise it can get carried away. The article is about "Brandeis University" which operations as an institution. If a bunch of students (who just happen to attend Brandeis) are involved in some off-campus activity, it's not really about "Brandeis University" anymore. Where do you draw the line? If a bunch of kids get together in a restaurant each week, does that make them a "Brandeis Dining Club." Alight 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an article about "Brandeis University". Not an article about what a bunch of students do when they get together off-campus. If you and your friends go out to dinner every week, does that make you a "Brandeis Dining Club?". Alight 20:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is an article on Brandeis University, and this section is a description of student life on campus. While the school itself does not recognize the fraternities and sororities, when a sizable percentage of the student body participates in it, and a large portion of the social scene on campus is driven by it, I feel a mention IS deserved in a description of the Student Life. To return to your question of a dining club, if and when several hundred students come together to organize dining trips as a unit, then I would say they should be listed as a part of student life. Jihad cowboy 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be blind (or a Brandeis admin) to make the blanket statement that frats and sororities simply do not exist on campus, because they sure as hell do - they're just not OFFICIALLY funded. In the past, fraternity members would draft a proposal for a non-Greek club, the Allocations Board would approve, and then they would get funding from the Student Activities Fee pool like any other club. Of course no one knew that they were essentially funneling the funds to buy liquor for their parties. Most of them, however, just got their funding from the pockets of their members. So really, that statement ought to be changed to maintain accuracy - to say there are none on campus is practically lying.
To say that there are none on campus is absolutly correct. To prove otherwise, show me a campus map, and point out the frat houses please?
Since when do fraternities need to be in actual frat houses? They're just social clubs. If you're using designated physical space exclusive to that club as criteria for existence on campus, then a huge chunk of Brandeis' supposed 200-plus clubs would, according to you, have no on-campus presence. I attended two on-campus frat "parties" (more like open bars but the suites were PACKED) that were both busted by Alwina. Phi Psi, AEpi, SDT, and ZBT are the most active. Haven't you seen them doing their rushing/initiation whatchamacallit on campus? I just don't see how you can attend school there as an undergraduate and not realize that there ARE frats on campus, they just happen to be a flimsy underground network.
At the very least that statement needs to be reworded because it makes it sound like they completely don't exist at all. What you wrote is what Brandeis told me in their official brochures and, boy, was I in for a surprise when I actually arrived there as a freshman.
Ok I just deleted it, fair enough?
Fair enough. P.S. "I just don't see how you can attend school there as an undergraduate and not realize that there ARE frats on campus" : The reason for this is that the last time I was an undergraduate there was 1984. At that time there were absolutely no fraternities (underground or otherwise), and quite frankly this was quite an appealing feature of the school.
It's true that there are frats that a few Brandeis students belong to. However, they have little or no effect on student life for those who don't belong to them. Their parties are typically unpopular and all off campus. They are basically social groups with hazing and matching sweaters.
I have no interest in getting involved with this long-standing argument, but I strongly believe that the university policy on fraternities on sororities is both a significant point of interest and something that potential students deserve to know about. I've added a paragraph on fraternal/sororal orders to the social life section (while also removing some of the substantial bias from the paragraph about Chums) that merely states University policy and notes the existence of unrecognized frats/sororities. Feel free to review for bias (I've done my best to word it in an unbiased fashion), but please don't just angrily delete - I think that this is information that people deserve to know about, and I don't think that anyone can complain about the addition of official university policy to an article about Brandeis university.-- Lenrodman 20:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
To address specifically the party aspect of fraternity life is to ignore 90% of what fraternities are. However, this is to counter the misinformed posts before me.
It's wrong that fraternities "have little or no effect on student life for those who don't belong to them." I've been to plenty of fraternity parties where I see plenty of new Brandeis faces. Yes, it's true not everyone participats, but the parties themselves are far from "typically unpopular." Unpopular parties are normally those on-campus that get broken up due to noise complaints from hardworking neighbors. That's not to say that's unfair though--everyone at Brandeis is their primarily to learn, thus noise complaints are justified. Therefore, the off-campus nature of these fraternity parties are actually benificial even to those students who prefer not to participate, as the ruckus that normally occurs next-door is moved a half mile down the road. Marcman411 ( talk) 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed new info on the Justice added by a Justice editor yesterday that I feel is unsubstantiated:
-- 140.247.216.77 18:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that going forward, for an alumnus or faculty member to be considered "notable" they would at a minimum need to have their own (non-stub) Wikipedia article.
Sorry but your ignorance is no excuse for not putting in notable faculty like Allen Grossman, a MacArthur winner and world-famous poet, who's certainly a lot more notable than Campbell, or Paul Solman, founder of the Real Paper, editor of Mother Jones, major correspondent on the Jim Lehrer News Hour. The whole idea of wikipedia is the branching that it makes possible. On your showing nothing could ever get on wikipedia.
When did the criterion get to be "so notable"? What does "so" mean? When did someone editing an entry sign on to write another one? Especially when people start feeling they can delete the people they don't know or haven't heard of. Mary Campbell (it seems) writes an article on herself, so she stays on the list, but Grossman who is on everyone's short list of major poets and critics, and a MacArthur genius honoree is deleted. As to reading like "a who's who of unknowns," well if you check you'll find that it reads like the real "Who's Who," which has articles on the people you deleted. Which makes relevant the following sentences from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not : "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." The people you deleted meet that criterion, in spades, whether someone has bothered to write an article on them yet or not.
You're embarrassed for Brandeis? But the Brandeis entry isn't supposed to be advertising for Brandeis. Or who are you embarrassed for?
Underneath every edit box it links to the verifiability policy which says that 1) Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. At a quick check, of the first twenty-five names on the list, only five met the requirements of policy.
I don't think we need to worry about notability just yet, let's start by worrying about verifiability.
Every name on the list needs to have a source citation showing that the named person attended Brandeis. A link to a Wikipedia article won't do because a) Wikipedia itself does not meet the reliable source guidelines, and b) as my experiment shows, many Wikipedia articles that say that a person attended Brandeis don't give a source for that fact. (In the cases of articles that do, the source citation should be copied into this article along with the name). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way, but "List of Brandeis University people" hardly seems a professional name for an article. Do others agree this list should be renamed (and perhaps shortened)?-- Lenrodman 21:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have suggested that VoiceMale be merged into this article since, alone, it doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements for an article. However, it would probably be a good subsection of the extracurriculars section of this school's page. JHMM13 ( T | C) 20:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Leave it be. I don't think too many readers of a general article on Brandeis University will be particularly interested in the exploits of such notables as Jon "Zippy" Weinstein, Jordan Suchow, et. al. Alight 12:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (Class of '84)
As a Brandeis student, I would be appalled if VoiceMale- a group which does not deserve a Wiki article on its own merits, were merged into the Brandeis U. article. If that's the case, then why not make a Wikipage for all 300+ groups on campus, including all dozen a cappella troupes, and then put them all on the Brandeis main page? I have nothing against VoiceMale (I've heard them sing only once in my three years at this school, and they were fine), but an individual (non-notable) college a cappella troupe does not need its own Wiki, much less does it need to be on the page of said troupe's college. In addition, the article on VoiceMale is terribly biased and poorly written. It's somewhat a disgrace to the wonderful school that I attend. -- Kicking222 06:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree...VoiceMale should not have a Wiki. It doesn't fit here.
The suggestion to merge VoiceMale with the main Brandeis site is simply a bad idea:
There was a disambiguation paragraph in the middle of the article. Not sure it's called for at all (I've never seen anyone confuse Brandeis Law with Brandeis U), but if it's needed, it belongs at the top of the page under Wikipedia guidelines.
I've created a Category:Brandeis University alumni category. If there's a brave soul who wants to modify a hundred articles to add the category to their listing, we can simplify this page considerably. Quite frankly, some of those names make Brandeis look two-bit: can you imagine Harvard or Princeton bragging that Rob Hand is an alumnus? -- FRCP11 17:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing this because it's unsourced, unlinked, doesn't say what President, and Google gives zero hits on "Chana B. Miller".
Dpbsmith (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Passing no judgement on the relative notability of the position, I'd think that which president he served under from 2002-2006 should be obvious. Interpretivechaos 20:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I've personally added about fifteen source citations to the "notable alumni" section.
In a few days I am going to begin moving any entries that are still unsourced into this Talk section. Before anyone starts yelling at me, let me say:
First, I don't have any reason to believe these people are not Brandeis alumni. I think they were entered in good faith. Personally I don't think any of them, except perhaps Chana B. Miller, are prank entries.
Second, if it is the case that "a simple search" will turn up a source, rather than complaining that I have not done the search, simply do the search and put the source into the article itself; if anyone is not sure how to do this, for a simple web page you type the URL surrounded by square brackets, like this:
*[[Martin Peretz]]: Editor in chief of ''[[The New Republic]]''[http://www.tnr.com/showBio.mhtml?pid=22]
which becomes this:
(If you're an experienced Wikipedian, it's better to use the Cite Web template. I'm afraid I was too lazy to do this for the references I added myself).
Finally, the verifiability policy is linked underneath every edit box, and says: 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
OK. You can yell at me now. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone recently corrected "the Castle" to "Usen Castle" in Middlesex University.
Can someone enlighten me on usage?
I had the impression that "the Castle" was very common, and "Usen Castle" formal and rare.
Google site searches on www.brandeis.edu give 86 hits on "the Castle' and only 39 hits on "Usen Castle". A Google Books search gives "the Castle" Brandeis and only two on 2 hits on "Usen Castle" Brandeis Dpbsmith (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have added a criticism of Brandeis at the end of the Einstein article, the points are factual and the controversy interesting and to some extent go to the heart of what Brandeis is all about as a university, look forward to further edits to this section. Incorrect 06:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Why the heck are there a hundred footnotes? No other college alumni list has this problem. Is it really controversial that Christy Hefner was an alum? -- FRCP11 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
(Resetting margin) FRCP11, here is a list of some things in which I think we are in agreement. Can you confirm my understanding?
1) The lists of faculty and alumni in this article are now quite long, and should be broken out into a separate List of Brandeis people (in a manner similar to many other universities, e.g. List of Tulane University people, List of Monash University people...)
2) The statement that "X is an alumnus of Y" is almost never controversial. Such statements are almost always entered in good faith. In the case where X is a bluelink (to a well-established article) the chances are negligible that the entry is a prank, and the chances that it is accurate are high.
3) Judgement needs to be used in applying policy. It is possible to use valid policy selectively in a bad-faith manner. It is appropriate to challenge any appearance of non-neutrality.
4) The verifiability policy as written does not contain anything limiting it to controversial statements or to important statements.
5) In many cases it does not take much work to verify that X is an alumnus of Y.
6) Most existing alumni lists do not cite sources and are in technical violation of the letter of the verifiability policy.
7) Under the existing technical mechanisms of Wikipedia create a conflict in that full compliance with WP:V and WP:CITE does to some extent impair the readability of articles.
Dpbsmith (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-Why is being a selectman of a town not a notable thing? -Igor
Un-logged-in users keep removing the quotation "a 30 percent-Jewish student body should be fine."
If the incident is to be mentioned at all, I think it's very important to keep this in, for several reasons.
First, it is Brown's own words (not an interpretation of his words).
Second, this quotation is the essence of the article's shock value, both because the percentage named is such a sharp reduction from the present composition, and because, while we must not put the words "Brandeis should have a Jewish quota" into his mouth, since he never said them, we can and should allow the reader to decide whether he said something amounting to that.
If (as I assume) Brown was not speaking for the student body, and if it is important to establish this, fine. However, the comment that "Few current students wrote letters to the editor of The Justice, implying that many weren't moved by his views" is inappropriate. First, it is vague. How many students wrote letters? Did the editor of the Justice say how many were received? Second, even if it is "a few," it is hard to know how to interpret this, and in any case we can't put someone's personal interpretation in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
that is npov. unless, of course, you can find a newspaper article with people praising the union, etc.
I think either (1) Hefner should be moved to "business" because she is, after all, a CEO and Chairwoman, or both Asper and Olafson should be moved to media, because, after all, Asper is CEO of "one of Canada's largest international media companies" and Olafson is VP at "Time Warner Digital Media." I would personally prefer for Hefner to be moved to "business," but either one is acceptable.
Please merge any relevant content from Renfield Hall per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renfield Hall. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect. If there are many dormatories, it might be worth creating a new article Brandeis University student housing.) Thanks. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-19 12:03Z
I just gave a link to Gravity magazine's website, and added the year of its foundation (information from the Gravity site). Arrdee 05:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Since Nathan Cohen is indeed notable, I think there needs to be a Wikipedia article to eliminate the "red link". This would apply to any other "red link" notables as well. Alight 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey all. I have noticed that both Cholmondeley's and Usen Castle are redlinks on the article for Central Perk. While I certainly do not deny that there could be notability questions about both these subjects, I think that it would be wonderful to create articles for both, or to incorporate some information (there is currently none) on this page. I could create some stubs myself, but I imagine that people on campus would be far more inclined to (a) be able to acquire photos, and (b) be more "in" on information to include. As a member of the class of 2004, who never lived in the Castle, well, I'm sure things have changed somewhat, and my memory is fuzzy about the details. Thanks. LordAmeth 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I was at Brandeis from 1987-91, and never once saw The Barrister. (The several publications I did see are not on the list.) Anyway, WP:NOT#LIST, and that list should be trimmed substantially. THF 11:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I was there 1984-1988, and personally dropped a copy in front of each room, in all quads, the morning of publication!
Also see the following archives link!
http://lts.brandeis.edu/research/archives-speccoll/findingguides/archives/periodicals/barrister.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex495 ( talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Bran-dice, bran-dees, bran-deez, or something else? Sorry, I've forgotten my IPA. White Lightning 02:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Why has the 2005 assault in the women dorm not been mentioned? The news report is on youtube, in fact that's one of the first things that comes up when you search for Brandeis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.115.4 ( talk) 15:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This article could use a pronunciation guide, is it 'Brand-eyes', 'Brand-is' or 'Brand-eys' (or something completely different)? + Hexagon1 ( t) 06:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a source for the $770M endowment figure in the profile? After googling combinations of "Brandeis endowment", "$770" etc., it seems to me that the Campaign for Brandeis fundraising drive is aiming at, and closing to reaching, $770M in raised money, but that is not the same as the endowment principal. this university document (page 8) gives a $691M endowment at the end of June '07. A Brandeis Reporter article (from Jan. '08) talks about the Campaign for Brandeis, how it is aiming for $770M and at end of Nov. '07 was nearly there at $730M, and also mentions that at that time the actual endowment was "approximately" $700M, which is certainly consistent with the $691M figure from a few months before. Seems to me the 770 in the article is erroneously taken from the target of the Campaign; if they went from 691 to "approximately" 700 from june to nov. it's not likely they went from 700 to 770 since. I'd say the number in the article should be something like "$691 million (2007)" with a footnote to the document giving that figure. In retrospect, after doing that research, it seems ironic that coincidentally, the actual numerical difference betweent the endowment and fundraising is rather small... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.212.208 ( talk) 23:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, thought I saw a source pegging it at 800m, but can't find it now.... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.147.76.240 (
talk)
23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Recent (feb 1, 2009) endowment listed at $549M from the new york times >
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/opinion/02mon4.html?scp=3&sq=brandeis%20endowment&st=cse
Other articles within a couple days cite "25% drop" and etc.. which would explain large drop from the "current" $691M figure from 2008. Edit or no go? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.78.8.129 (
talk)
08:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Under Traditions, the article lists the dressing up of statues named Louis and Peter Pan. The Louis statue is obviously that of Louis Brandeis, standing on a tiny hill between Shapiro, Sherman, and Rosenthal, but which statue is the Peter Pan statue? I went there for four years, relatively recently, and I have no idea what this refers to. Thanks. LordAmeth ( talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Another editor has requested a discussion be opened here regarding the trivia section that has been removed from this article. I removed the section because (a) it has been unsourced for over two years and (b) it is trivial information. If reliable sources can be provided showing that this university has had a prominent place in popular culture then I'd be happy to see that information added to the article. But an unsourced listing of items selected only by Wikipedia editors is completely unacceptable in any article. ElKevbo ( talk) 00:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Yo I'm not a super well versed Wikipedian in terms of discussion protocol. But I went to Brandeis, and well I read a lot of Wikipedia articles. This article could it be better? COuld it be a Good Article. Can it teach people what Brandeis is? Can it be super true and detailed in appropriate ways that don't give added weight to recent events and hella objective? I guess I'm gonna make bold edits to make it more better or whatever, and I think that will work. FuzzyBuddy2012 ( talk) 14:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Lx797 has been adding highly subjective and possibly inflammatory text ( WP:NPOV). It also fails to contribute any useful information to the topic. The current revision has a NPOV. The user is insistent on adding WP:SPECULATION. This is his userpage which is partly the source of his text. 26oo ( talk) 18:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
summary of what transpired. In any controversy there are two sides to the story and both sides have to be presented regardless of how they may be perceived by some. Use 2600 deleted all the new text posted by Lx797. In response to the above comments by user 2600, here are the responses:
RESPONSE TO USER VERITE1789 FROM USER LX797: User Verite1789 replaced the precise description of what took place with a faint and watered down version. The deletions makes no sense and the paragraph loses its meaning without proper context and perspective.
VERITE1789 WROTE: First of all, it is overwhelmingly the point of view of one person, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and is mainly speculation. While Lx797 is correct that well cited POV isn't a problem, giving undue focus to one POV over another is. Subsequent edits should attempt to strike a balance between POVs.
RESPONSE: Firstly, the information regarding "selective quotation" issued by CAIR is not speculation, there's a new citation added from the Weekly Standard that provides a copy of the letter sent by CAIR to Brandeis. Secondly, the current information is overwhelmingly from Brandeis' POV, such as the remarks regarding "core value", "6000 signature by students" and "certain of her past statements". Ali's POV is needed to provide a proper balance. If anyone wants to provide more information regarding Brandeis' POV then they are free to do so but not by deleting Ali's POV to achieve an arbitrary forced balance, which is more akin to a forced censorship. It's like penalizing a student for submitting an extensive report because it's does not strike a balance with the other student's less extensive report!
VERITE1789 WROTE: The second problem, and the more important issue, is that the added paragraph does not contribute to the article as a whole. This is the Wikipedia page for Brandeis University not for Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opinions (although the paragraph in question would probably be a good addition to Ali's Wikipedia page). Since this page is for a university, it should focus more on the university itself and academic perspectives and less on an single incident. (see "Improving this Article in General" for a similar opinion)
RESPONSE: The new paragraph puts the event's leading up to the commencement into perspective and helps readers better understand what transpired and why. Although this information would be beneficial on Ali's Wikipedia's page, it must appear on Brandies' page because the incident took place at Brandeis.
Here are the reasons that clearly spell out the justification for reinstating and adding new information to the second paragraph:
Sentence #1: No change
Sentence #2: This sentence was previously added by Verite1789 on May 15, 2014. IT READS: According to Brandeis, Ali was never invited to speak at commencement, she was only invited to receive an honorary degree.
Sentence #3: This sentence affirms Ali's POV that she was invited to speak and the commencement and not merely receive an honorary degree. IT READS: Ali said that after having spent many months of planning for her to speak at the commencement she was surprised Brandeis used some of her past statements as an excuse to withdraw the invitation, especially since her views have always been public on Google.
Sentence #4: The Weekly Standard citation provides a copy of the letter sent by CAIR to Brandeis which shows the "selective quotation" that Ali talks about, which shows what she said was not speculation. IT READS: She was not surprised when the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), protested against her for being honored, "My critics have long specialized in selective quotation ... designed to misrepresent me and my work".
Sentence #5: Here Ali describes what caused Brandeis to cancel her invitation, which is also confirmed by the letter from CAIR to Brandeis. IT READS: Ali stated that the university's decision was motivated in part by fear of offending Muslims.
Sentence #6: Minor change IT READS: She argued that the “spirit of free expression” referred to in the Brandeis statement has been betrayed and stifled.
RESPONSE TO USER 2600 FROM USER LX797:
User 2600 has again made biased deletions that are not justified. The deletions were blindly made without reading the paragraph or having any regard to the content. For example, it's not clear what user 2600 means by claiming the information is "incorrect" when all the information is fully cited and referenced. Also complain about the reference to "child marriage and dowry death" in the paragraph 1, sentence 1, when those text were previously deleted and no longer relevant? Furthermore, user 2600 criticized the use of Ali's full speech by saying, "You even went as far as adding a speech. Wikipedia is not a soapbox", however that speech was deleted back in May 16 and never reinstated. It's helpful to read the text before making careless deletions.
In a free and open society people prefer to read and judge for themselves instead of having information censored. It's alarming to see all these attempt to suppress and whitewash information related to a black woman standing up for women's right in Islam. There are lots of critical comments posted on Wikipedia and if they were to be deleted because some view them as unsavory then we might as well pack it in and shut down the site.
Response to User: LX797
No one is attempted to censor you or suppress information. Your fellow Wikipedia editors are trying to work with you to come up with a version of this paragraph that is faithful to Wikipedia's purpose as an unbiased, informative encyclopedia. With that said, I think your current revision is an improvement. It addresses my first objection, since it provides a better balance between Ali's statements and Brandeis's statements. However, it isn't perfect yet since it doesn't entirely address my second, and more important, objection that not all the information in the paragraph has something to do with the university for which the article exists. As a result, my current revision, in an attempt to keep the paragraph relevant to the article itself, maintains the two perspectives of Ali and Brandeis, but removes any sentence that does not directly reference Brandeis University. I hope this revision is satisfactory and, as always, I'm open to further feedback and suggestions. Vérité1789 ( talk) 00:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Vérité1789.
RESPONSE TO VERITE1789 FROM LX797 The sentence deleted by Verite1789 is: She [Ali] was not surprised when the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) protested against her for being honored [at Brandeis], "My critics have long specialized in selective quotation ... designed to misrepresent me and my work". Verite1789 states above, " ... removes any sentence that does not directly reference Brandeis University". There are three primary parties involved here; Brandeis, Ali and CAIR. It was mainly due to the letter issued by CAIR and the publicity surrounding it that caused Brandeis to withdraw its invitation from Ali. Brandeis acknowledged CAIR's letter as did Ali when she stated that, "my critics have long specialized in selective quotation". According to Verite1789, Wikipedia's requirement is to have an "unbiased, informative encyclopedia", therefore the revised sentence mentions CAIR's role in the controversy and "directly references "Brandeis" as it remains true to the stated objectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx797 ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Response to User:Lx797 Lx797 most recent revision is more clear on the sentence's connection to Brandeis. However, while Lx797 claims it was mainly due to the letter issued by CAIR and the publicity surrounding it that caused Brandeis to withdraw its invitation from Ali," that is entirely speculation. According to Brandeis University, the offer was withdrawn after students and faculty objected. In addition, while CAIR did send a letter to Brandeis, a brief internet search shows that many others also called on Brandeis to withdraw the offer. Singling out one group creates bias in an supposedly unbiased article. The previous version of the article was, in my opinion, by far the best version we could come up with. I am always open to further suggestions, but it seems it would be honestly be better to leave the article as is. At the moment, it meets Wikipedia's high standards, let's not take away from that. Vérité1789 ( talk) 01:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Brandeis University. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Brandeis University. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brandeis University. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Brandeis University. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Brandeis University. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ramdasstapes.org/biography.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
How could Eleanor Roosevelt be a graduate of Brandeis University, if it wasn't founded until after she became first lady?
Was she a graduate of Middlesex University? That is not the same thing.
Brandeis University was the home of Arnold S. Shapiro when he died. It is only because of the work of David Buchsbaum that we know he died from leukemia. As it stands, we do not know the place or date of Shapiro’s birth. It sometimes happens that mathematics is appreciated most after its creator is gone, such as the case with Bernhard Riemann and William Kingdon Clifford. It is hoped that someone in Brandeis administration will take an interest and post on the University site a memorial note that would say where Shapiro came from and what his birthday was. The day he died is not known either, but enthusiasm for his ideas continues to grow. Rgdboer ( talk) 23:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Arnold was born in 1921 his family was living in Brookline, MA at the time. He died on May 1 1962 while his family was living in Newtonville MA. GregorDS ( talk) 16:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)