Talk:Brandeis University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dessima Williams

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)

67.161.52.186, reverting this, comments in the edit log "all schools make this claim, therefore making the statement redundant. which school says "we are not regarded highly academically"?

This description is not coming from Brandeis, and I don't think there would be consensus that, say, Slippery Rock State or (pick your favorite low-ranked school) would see much defense here. Brandeis, however, is a strong school, and in particular is a strong and new (~55 years old) one. Look, rather than revert edits multiple times, talk to us here about why you think Brandeis isn't strong. --Zippy 00:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

CTong -- why remove Robert Reich? Did he stop being notable? -- Metahacker 02:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

He didn't stop being notable, but he moved to Berkeley this semester, so he's no longer at Brandeis. -- Jmanning

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.

What's with the Ivy League snobs?

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.

notables...

...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)

Greeks

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)

Campus Publications

I've removed new info on the Justice added by a Justice editor yesterday that I feel is unsubstantiated:

The Justice is generally held in much higher esteem than The Hoot by both on- and off-campus observers, but it also receives considerably more funding than The Hoot.

--140.247.216.77 18:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Notable" Alumni and Faculty

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.

I think the above comment is just sad. Wikipedia? How about published notable papers in their field? How many other published papers referenced one of their papers - in a non-critical tone? But no, Wikipedia...

That may be resonable criteria for notablility in the academic community, but for a general-interest reference source such as Wikipedia, I think that is a very reasonable standard.Alight 11:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

If Allen Grossman (a former professor of mine, I might add) is so notable, write a Wikipedia article for him. It's pretty embarassing that Brandeis' "notable alumi/faculty" listing pretty much reads like a who's who of unknowns.

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?

Let me put it another way. By including somebody in a list of "notable" anything, you are making a statement that they have distinguished themselves above potentially thousands of others. All I'm saying is, if this is true than just putting them on a list is not particulary informative. Write an article and provide some facts. If Allen Grossman is on "everyone's short list of major poets." Why is he not in the List of poets from the United States or List of English language poets lists? Each of these lists have hundreds of entries, and no Allen Grossman. It seems that he is only "notable" when discussed in the context of Brandeis University, which is to say not very notable at all. Of course, not knowing much about poetry, I (as well as the compilers of the aforementioned lists) could be wrong, in which case a simple article enumerating Grossman's accomplishments would take care of this.

As far as the "embarassing" remark goes, poor choice of words on my part. Let's just say it looks "silly" for any list of notable people in Wikipedia to be filled with names which have no articles to back up the claim to notability.

Sigh. He's not on the list because, it seems obvious, he didn't put himself on the list. I do know a lot about poetry, and the list of notable American poets is not a good list. It's famous dead people and living people who are wikipedia-competent. No, he's not notable only when it comes to Brandeis. Check out for example the list in Harold Bloom's book The Western Canon of the most important writers now alive. (I assume you'll recognize Bloom's name.) That's one obvious place you'll find Grossman. Note that neither Jorie Graham, profiled everywhere, certainly considered one of the top ten living American poets (though not by me), nor Henri Cole or Mark Doty or Jay Wright (who all taught at Brandeis) nor Conrad Aiken nor A.R. Ammons nor John Hollander nor Dennis Johnson are on the List of poets from the United States. Nor is Olga Broumas. I think the fact that you don't know means you should defer to people who do. Like, in this case, me. You may say that the whole of Wikipedia trumps my knowledge. But what you need to know is that there are plenty of people who are internet-savvy who are on the list, and plenty of extremely famous people on the list, and then plenty of people who are extremely well-known but not internet-savvy who are not. Graham and Grossman are in that last category.

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)

It's fairly standard practice on Wikipedia. Look at other university articles.Alight 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

VoiceMale merge

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)

If it isn't notable enough to make the Brandeis University page, then I think it isn't notable enough to have its own page. JHMM13 (T | C) 18:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. Just because the Brandeis University page doesn't list something doesn't automatically make it un-notable; it might mean we need to expand the Brandeis page. For a parallel structure, the Yale page lists many more a cappella groups than just The Whiffenpoofs, not all of whom are world-famous; this page could list all the various a cappella groups, and if there is enough interest to flesh out the individual groups, then let those pages live or die on their own. VoiceMale editors, you do need to spiff up that page, though... In any case, don't merge; either kill the VoiceMale page, or let it stand on its own. -- Metahacker 22:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the general standard on Wikipedia is that if a person or group isn't notable enough on its/his/her own, then it must first be seen if there is another article where the information is useful, otherwise it should be deleted. I don't believe the group Voicemale has stated its notability well enough, but within Brandeis University, I'm sure it serves an important role for many students. As you said, the Yale page lists many groups on that page, but only the notable one has its own page. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing to mention that Brandeis has a vocal group called VoiceMale on the main Brandeis page, it's quite another thing to name group members, enumerate albums etc. If anything needs to be said about VoiceMale beyond the fact that it exists, that should be put on a seperate VoiceMale page. What it comes down to is a choice between cluttering up the main Brandeis article with so much crud that it becomes unreadable, or giving VoiceMale its own page, I think the choice is clear. Alight 12:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, I think the point of a merge is to take what's important to the page it will be merged into and leave all the rest behind. Does anybody know enough about Brandeis to add this group in a section onto the Brandeis page? I don't want to nominate VoiceMale for deletion until any necessary information is transferred. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. I think "what's important" is relative to the page it's on. For a Brandeis University page, "what's important" about VoiceMale is pretty much limited to the fact that it exists. For a VoiceMale page, "what's important" takes on a very different meaning and can include lots of detail that should not be deleted. This is the status-quo and I think it's best left as is. Alight 21:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. The status quo on Wikipedia is to delete nn-articles and bring over any necessary information onto an article that might need it. Many student groups have their own pages created only to be merged into the University's page. Your error in logic comes when you assume that VoiceMale deserves its own page which you haven't justified. If you do, then I would be very willing to pull my suggestion for a move. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not willing to take the responsibility of deciding if VoiceMale deserves its own page or not. However, I'm pretty emphatic that bringing the details of VoiceMale (or any group, publication, etc.) into the main university article constitutes clutter which is best left to a seperate article. Pray tell, what's the downside of giving VoiceMale its own article?Alight 01:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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:

• No other clubs or student groups are given their own section.
• VoiceMale is not a major organization on campus; in fact by definition it excludes over half of the students at Brandeis.

Louis D Brandeis School of Law

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.

It's not a disambiguation paragraph. It's simply there to point out the fact that another university named one of their schools with a similar name. I agree, I don't think anybody is getting the schools confused.

It belongs in the Louis Brandeis article, then, not the Brandeis U article. Louisville didn't name its law school after Brandeis because of the Waltham institution. If it's not disambiguation, it's random trivia that doesn't belong smack in the middle of the article, much less singled out with its own "NOTE". Cheers. -- FRCP11 01:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not random trivia, it's useful information. But you obviously have SUCH a strong opinion on this matter, I might as well let it be. Alight 13:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (Brandeis, '84)

Category:Brandeis University alumni

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 think the whole list should go into a separate article, List of Brandeis people or List of Brandeis University people, as has been done with other university articles (List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people, List of University of Chicago people), etc. Also, I think we should begin insisting that every name on the list be sourced, i.e. there should be a verifiable source citation affirming that the person is actually a Brandeis alumnus. In other, similar, lists been astonished at how often I've clicked on a blue-linked name in such a list only to find that the linked article gave no source for the person's being an alumnus... and how often the linked article doesn't even mention the school. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• I looked at the first twenty-five names on the list... about five of the twenty-five were bluelinks to a Wikipedia article that cited a source. Hip! Hip Hooray! About ten were either redlinks, or linked to Wikipedia articles that did not even mention Brandeis. Boo! The rest were links to articles that did say the person attended Brandeis (two cheers) but failed to give any source for the fact (deduct one cheer). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving an unsourced, recently added redlinked alumna name here, pending provision of a source

I'm removing this because it's unsourced, unlinked, doesn't say what President, and Google gives zero hits on "Chana B. Miller".

• Chana B. Miller: Chief Assistant vegan Chef to the President from 2002-2006

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)

Um, I'd say "he" is probably "she", and I don't think it's so obvious - I mean, Bush had a vegan chef? I'd think it more likely to be Reinharz. Tvoz |talk 20:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing unsourced entries

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:

• Martin Peretz: Editor in chief of The New Republic[1]

(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)

I'm not going to yell at you, but I think this is a bad idea. Why is Brandeis being held to a different standard than every other University? Are you going to do the same thing to the thousands of other university articles? What standards are you going to apply for a citation? Are you going to settle for nothing less than a digitally-signed scanned image of their diploma? Don't you think that some people's Brandeis affiliation is self-evident? (e.g. Mitch Albom). Also, why are you limiting this exercise to alumni? Why not require citations for faculty and staff affiliation? Alight 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (Brandeis '84)

1) The standards that should be applied are those described in the reliable source guidelines. Read WP:V and WP:RS. They don't say anything about digitally-scanned diplomas. They say published in a reliable source, and WP:RS is a good working standard for what's a reliable source. Me, I'll settle for almost any source.

2) You ask "Why is Brandeis being held to a different standard than every other University?" WP:V is described both as "official policy" and as non-negotiable. So I ask: Why do you say that Brandeis University need not be held to the same standard as the rest of Wikipedia?

3) Of course the faculty should have citations as well. There are several reasons for worrying about alumni lists first. Faculty can probably be verified fairly quickly from a single source. I haven't looked for it, but most universities have online directories or similar facilities. There may even be published departmental lists, so a single reference can be used for several faculty members.

Correction: in fact, the faculty list is properly sourced, because it says "All current faculty may be found in the Brandeis faculty guide." It might not be a bad idea to verify that each of the names on the list really are in that guide--when I tried that exercise on a list of MIT faculty I turned up a couple of prank entries--but in fact, the requirements of the verifiability policy are met, because a university's online faculty guide is a reliable source for the university's faculty, and is verifiable--you can quickly determine whether or not the reference really says what the article says it says. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

4) I'm not singling out Brandeis. Like everyone else, I work on the articles I work on, as I happen to come to them. I was drawn to Brandeis because I happened to be looking into the history of the Jewish quota at Harvard (and elsewhere). When I was looking for material on Brandeis' having been founded in response to the Jewish quota, I discovered the Einstein connection, which, though hardly a secret, was news to me, not in the article, and pretty interesting to me. After writing some stuff about it, I happened to look at the rest of the article, and said "yeesh." I decided to clean up one section of it. I don't have a great appetite for the job, but I do hate these long lists of unsourced items, and I do try to deal with them when I run across them in an article I happen to be working on.

5) Wikipedia is inconsistent. It goes with the territory. Policy is never applied instantaneously and uniformly across all of Wikipedia. If you want that, you need to work on a command-and-control encyclopedia. In point of fact, the unsourced material shouldn't have been going into the article in the first place.

6) You say it "self-evident" that Mitch Albom is a Brandeis alum. Not to me. Now that I'm looking at the article, I'm guessing that's because I haven't read Tuesdays with Morrie. But what's the big problem here? Assuming that the book is non-fiction, and assuming he says somewhere that he went to Brandeis, well, gee, look it up and put in a citation. And, why didn't the person who listed him put it in in the first place? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's "self evident" that Albom is a Brandeis alum because the primary basis of his notoriety is that he went to Brandeis (which makes him pretty much unique in the list).

I'm just finding it a bit odd that you chose to: 1. Add a "Origins of Brandeis" section that focuses almost exclusively on the negative aspects of its founding. Anybody who knows anything about the university's history will tell you that you can't write about the history of Brandeis without discussing Abe Sachar, but since you only want to focus on the negative aspects you chose to leave him out. 2. You intend to gut the listing of alumni in a fashion that has not been applied to any other university (can you name one single university article on Wikipedia where every alumni listed has a citation?). You seem to have a problem with Brandeis, and for whatever reason that is, is your business, but I think your POV is starting to creep into your actions.

That hurts. You mistake my point of view. Greatly. I indeed did not write, nor did I intend to write a balanced or complete picture of Brandeis' origins. What I wrote could be a part of a history section, which the article lacks. Prehistory, if you will. I ran across the Einstein thing, and aimed to describe that particular incident and my curiosity indeed sort of ran away with me and by the time I had marshalled what seemed to be the relevant facts I had six paragraphs. Probably too many. But I hope you'll notice that I cited Abram L. Sachar's book, Brandeis University: A Host at Last, four times.

You challenge me to "name one single university article on Wikipedia where every alumni listed has a citation." I present this diff as evidence that I'm not singling out Brandeis, and Babson College as an example of an article in which every alumni listed does have a citation. Yes, it's easier for Babson because Babson has fewer notable alumni than Brandeis. I've never removed any entry as unsourced where anyone has provided any halfway reasonable source. I've sourced a dozen of the Brandeis entries myself, mostly by following up the references in other articles but also by doing my own searches. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it hurts, but I don't know you and all I have to go on is your actions, which appear to be those of someone who has an axe to grind with Brandeis. Why don't you change the title of your section to something like "Brandeis and Einstein." I would think that calling what you wrote "Origins of Brandeis" is quite misleading, as there is MUCH more to the story than what you chose to include.

As far as the alumni issue goes, I stand by my statement that you are holding Brandeis to a different standard (the Babson example doesn't cut it for me) than other universities. Alight 13:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Castle" vs. "Usen Castle"

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)

The Matt Brown and other incidents

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)

I reorganized that section. It certainly doesn't belong in "the Einstein incident." This is not, I repeat not supposed to be a "criticism of Brandeis" section. I think the recent incidents deserve mention but I tried to wordsmith them a bit. Matt Brown did not actually advocate a quota in so many words, but he did name a specific percentage (30%) and he did advocate jiggering policy to encourage more non-Jewish and less Jewish enrollment. This was, of course, precisely what Yale and Princeton did in the 1920s. Harvard's then-president Lowell created a furor by being more open about what he was doing. Brown's rationale was (shockingly, to me) similar to Lowell's stated rationale--Lowell maintained and probably believed that the Jewish quota was a way of reducing anti-Semitism. I'd like to say something about in the article about Brown "shocking many" and about the obvious irony of proposing a Jewish quota at a university that was often described in the fifties as a "Jewish-sponsored non-quota university" but won't do so until I can find a suitable source citation.

Really, though, I think Matt Brown is just testing the boundaries and shocking his elders and it will probably die down and be forgotten in a few months... don't you? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is notable at all. The 1987 "deJudification" controversy when they first introduced pork and shellfish on campus was a much bigger deal, including campus demonstrations and NY Times coverage. A Matt Brown oped doesn't belong on Wikipedia. -- FRCP11 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Do what you think best. I wouldn't have any issue with snipping this item and moving it to Talk. I think it's a bit of recent news that made a ripple today but probably won't a year from now... unless of course it turns out to be a leading indicator of some big change in direction. If one were to imagine a fairly complete "history of Brandeis" section, a discussion of Evelyn Handler's tenure would be appropriate. But I've been sufficiently stung by Alight's criticism that I'm not going to be the one to tackle that, certainly not right now. The history of Brandeis section should not be a puff piece limited to things that might appear in a Brandeis admission brochure, but it should not be a disguised "criticism of Brandeis" section, either.

I don't know anything about Matt Brown. His piece gives me the impression of being a breaching experiment.

By the way... do I take it that there was actually a period of time during which the Brandeis seal had no Hebrew letters on it... although the Yale University seal did? I assume the irony of this would not have escaped notice.... Dpbsmith (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The seal was never changed; it may have been discussed, but always had the Hebrew. The big change was the addition of pork and shellfish to one cafeteria (it was still absent from the cafeteria with the strictly kosher food), and the change in the calendar so that days off for Jewish holidays said "No university exercises" instead of "Sh'mini Atzeret." The campus does seem less Jewish now -- it was about 70% when I was there in the late 1980s, and is described as 50% now. -- FRCP11 14:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This article says the seal was changed, but for reasons other than to remove the Hebrew, which ended up staying on. -- FRCP11 16:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is the deal on the seal (from somebody (me) who was actually there when it all went down): Brandeis has never actually changed the university seal in any significant way. However, during the mid/late '80s they had a "logo" which was widely used and the "official" seal was pretty much kept under wraps. The logo was a stylized version of the three flames on the seal and had no wording (Hebrew or otherwise). The big controversy was that supposedly the university was using the logo in place of the seal as a way to keep the Hebrew letters off of marketing materials, etc. As far as I know, the logo has not been used in years (I can't find an example of it on-line). Alight 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (Brandeis '84)

Interesting. A Boston Globe story, August 2 1990, Metro, p. 1, about Handler's resignation says "Then, in an attempt to make Brandeis more inviting to non-Jewish students, Handler moved to remove Hebrew letters from the university seal, curtail observance of Jewish holidays and provide nonkosher dishes such as shrimp and pork in the dining halls. The university's Jewish community was outraged. Handler and the founding president, Abram L. Sachar, clashed over the "de- Judaization" of the school, one of several times the two crossed swords." The subtleties you mention could easily have been missed by the reporter. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Famous alumni

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)

????? Almost all the alumni references are Web citations and are inline, not footnotes. The footnotes are in the general References section for the entire article and mostly are citations to books, referencing factual items in the "founders" and "Einstein incident" section. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Continuing...

Read the verifiability policy. Citing sources is not "a problem." And, yes, whenever you check a list like this in detail, there is always a small but significant fraction of entries like this do not check out. In fact, I've seen cases of apparent circularity, in which an item was added to a list, someone saw the item on the list and added it to the article, so that the article and the list appeared to be supporting each other but neither cited a source.

A few years ago the verifiability policy was mostly honored in the breach. Following l'affaire Seigenthaler this is changing. If you see an aesthetic problem with the current "ref" mechanism, discuss it in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I'd like to see some system of references that is less intrusive than this one. Say, a user-controllable switch that would lightly color the portions of an article that are referenced, so you didn't have to have little superscripts spoiling the line spacing. But the current mechanism is far, far better than what we had a year ago.Dpbsmith (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

P. S. If you look at some of the featured article candidate discussions, you'll see that lack of references is commonly mentioned as a problem. And if you look at a featured article... like today's on the Polish-Soviet War... you'll see that they always have lots of footnotes. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a stilted reading of WP:V. If the original Wikipedia article mentions Brandeis, it's alright for this page to mention it, too, without a footnote. Your original justification for this -- "Babson does it, too" -- is a bit misleading, since you were the one who interlaced footnotes into the Babson article. Is there a single other Wikipedia editor who is demanding footnotes for alumni lists?

The Seigenthaler precedent isn't relevant, because that was an issue of WP:LIBEL. Brandeis isn't the best school in the world, but noone's going to sue Wikipedia over being labelled a Brandeis alum. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, but these are trivial claims, each of which are readily verified with an easy google search. The Jack London article doesn't live up to your stringent understanding of WP:V, either. I don't believe in vandalizing articles to prove a point, but I could add several dozen "fact" templates there, too. Unless there's someone other than Dpbsmith who thinks WP:V requires a footnote for every Brandeis alum, I'm deleting the citation calls in that section when I create the Brandeis University alumni article this weekend. -- FRCP11 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. It doesn't bother me as much in a separate article, for some reason. I assume you're not going to delete the references themselves, just the tags. I do think that it is particularly important to provide citations in the case of entries that are redlinks.

But show me where the verifiability policy says that it doesn't apply if the information is trivial, or is about popular culture, or is "fun." Or that it can be ignored if the editors of an article agree that it's not important for that article.

The Jack London article (about half of it being my work, in case anyone misses the point) indeed needs a lot of work on references. I'm trying to be punctilious when adding new material, and I'm trying to catch up on the old material. In the past the lack of a good ref mechanism inhibited me in my work on the article, which was bad, because the article currently lacks specific citations for the specific places where I got specific facts... even though most of them are included (somewhere!) in the general sources cited.

Most of Wikipedia needs better source citation. That's not a reason for not doing it, particularly when adding new material. I don't believe it takes very long to add a reference when adding a new person to the alumni list. You've done this in your recent additions: did you really find it to be much of a burden?

My point about Babson was that I wasn't picking on Brandeis... and that providing citations wasn't that hard... and if I recall correctly a couple of prank entries got picked up in the process. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A citation requirement doesn't prevent prank entries unless someone is checking the citations. And if someone is willing to go that far, it's just as easy to police the pranks without the citation requirement.

For alumni lists, there is a citation: it's the wikilink. It's a question of style. Hundreds of links to outside sources makes an article harder to read, and creates encyclopedia problems because outside links go dead fairly regularly.

It's also a question of scarce resources. It's not controversial that Abbie Hoffman went to Brandeis. Someone who wastes time hunting that factoid down isn't improving Wikipedia in more meaningul ways. The Abbie Hoffman entry can cite relevant sources for biography, and that way, if a link goes dead, it only needs to be reconfirmed a second time somewhere else. -- FRCP11 19:57, 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

Who said anything about notability? I'm talking about verifiability. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of context. Being a selectmen is perhaps notable for your town or family but it's a bit of a stretch to consider that accomplishment "notable" in the context of the thousands of Brandeis alumni. Using that standard, every alumnus who's ever had a book or magazine article published, served on a school board or been interviewed on TV could be listed as "notable." The person in question is no more notable than I am (which is to say, not notable at all). Alight 22:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC) (Brandeis '84)

L'affaire Brown

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)

Yes, but shock value is ALL it has. I think you should recuse yourself from this issue. Your past edits of the Brandeis article would indicate that your POV is far from neutral when it comes to Brandeis. Let someone without an obvious bias take this one up. Alight 01:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as significant. In the 1980s, David Bernstein wrote controversial Justice op-eds that had people shouting at his door for his head, and those are long forgotten. That entire section flunks the notability test. -- FRCP11 05:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing this entire section, as I've said before. I didn't put it in. My edits to it consisted of finding sources and replacing descriptions of what he said with what he said. I'm just saying that if it's to be mentioned at all, the silly-shocking statement is the core of the matter. Alight, you're probably beyond convincing regarding what you think is my point of view, but if you want me to be the one to take it out, I will. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

student union active?

that is npov. unless, of course, you can find a newspaper article with people praising the union, etc.

Christie Hefner in "media" but Asper and Olafson are in "business"?

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.

Merge from Renfield Hall

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

Update to Campus Publications...

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)

Notable

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)

Be bold and create stubs. There's no need to scrub articles of red-linked names, unless the red-link comes from an AfD for WP:N reasons. Wikipedia has lots of false negatives, and the presence of red links identifies future holes to be filled in the project. -- TedFrank 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In almost any other context, I'd completely agree with you. However, when compiling a list of "notables" there has to be SOME criteria for notability. I think that the assumption that if someone is notable, than someone else would have taken a few minutes to write a Wikipedia bio article is valid. Clearly many of these "red link" people are notable, so they should not be deleted from the list, but instead get an article (however stubby).Alight 01:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Chums and Castle

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 would be happy to try and help, I am not on campus anymore but I might be able to get some pictures. Besides, facebook may be a good way to request information and pictures. I am not sure these are topics are worthy of independent articles though. Thanks, Dan '06 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

publications

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)

Pronunciation

Bran-dice, bran-dees, bran-deez, or something else? Sorry, I've forgotten my IPA. White Lightning 02:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's bran-dice. Always has been. Alight 13:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

2005 dorm invasion and assault incident?

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)

Pronunciation

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)

None of the above! It's Brand-ice. Alight (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We could add that to the article if anyone knows IPA, or just add it as-is until someone comes along that does. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How odd, I only just now noticed the above section dealing with exactly the same thing even though I scanned the page previously looking of there's anything similar that has been posted... Sorry! PS: I've added the pronunciation to the article, could use an IPA equivalent though. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably someone has removed it from the article. I'm thankful that this useful information is present on the talk page at least. 86.177.125.185 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Endowment figure source

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)

Peter Pan?

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)

Trivia section

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)

Improving this Article in General

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)

Hirsi Ali Controversy

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)

Response to deleted posting.

All of the new text was deleted by user User:Vérité1789 and User:2600 without justification. It provided a balance between Brandeis and Ali's statements and had proper citations, sources and references. Both Brandeis and Ali's point of view together provide the proper

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:

User:Lx797 has been adding highly subjective and possibly inflammatory text (WP:NPOV).

RESPONSE ==> The claim is unfounded and represents user 2600's own personal biased opinion. If anyone disagrees with the new text (which is properly cited, referenced and quoted from major news organizations), then other points of view should be provided to allow readers to draw their own conclusion without censorship.

It also fails to contribute any useful information to the topic.

RESPONSE ==> On the contrary, the new text provides new information that sheds light on what transpired from Ms. Ali's perspective, by deleting the new text vital information is removed.

The current revision has a NPOV.

RESPONSE ==> The new text provides Ms. Ali's POV which is absolutely necessary for a balanced report.

The user is insistent on adding WP:SPECULATION.

RESPONSE ==> The "speculation" was expressed by Ms. Ali during an interview with a major news organization, which was paraphrased and properly cited.

This is his userpage which is partly the source of his text.

RESPONSE ==> The undelivered speech by Ms. Ali was published in the Wall Street Journal. User 2600 removed it and wrote, "no need for a full speech". The feedback was accepted and the speech was not reinstate.

In addition to all the above deletions, user 2600 deleted the following new text without any reason or justification:

Deleted: Section heading "Ayaan Hirsi Ali Commencement Controversy", the previous heading was, "Hirsi Ali Controversy", the new heading improves and clarify the title.

Deleted: the deleted text in the first paragraph was, "a staunch supporter of women's rights", this is a well know fact about Ms. Ali and the text is properly cited and quoted. .

Deleted: the deleted text in the first paragraph was, "honor killing"; as a women's rights advocate, Ms. Ali firmly stands against honor killing and various other forms of abuse and violence against women which she always talks about, no sense trying to conceal this fact. This is likely what user 2600 refered to as "inflammatory".

Deleted: the deleted text at the end of the first paragraph was "worldwide"; this was inserted to clarify the fact that the petition signed by 6,000 people had signatures from all over the world, a fact that can be confirmed by reviewing the petition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx797 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Response to User:Lx797

There are two problems with the paragraph in question. 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.

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)

With this in mind, the current edit to this page attempts to balance User:Lx797 contributions with the objections raised by User:2600 and User:Vérité1789 by limiting the focus to a brief excerpt of Brandeis' statement and a brief explanation of Ali's reaction. Further feedback is welcome and encouraged. Vérité1789 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Vérité1789

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.

To User:Lx797. Your post are inflammatory, incorrect and add no value to an already NPOV. "Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch supporter of women's rights and an outspoken campaigner against Islam and several of its primitive practices that justify the abuse and mistreatment of Muslim women such as female genital mutilation, honor killing, child marriage and dowry death." This would be WP:Label. You then went on to add speculative text, "She went on to speculate that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) provided selective, out-of-context inflammatory quotes to discredit her and the university's decision was motivated in part by a fear of offending Muslims."

You even went as far as adding a speech. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.12 As User:Vérité1789 stated, the issue here is not your references but the context. 26oo (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080703224010/http://union.brandeis.edu/bylaws.php to http://union.brandeis.edu/bylaws.php#8

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110615130327/http://www.brandeis.edu/campussustainability/greeningclass/fall2008.html to http://www.brandeis.edu/campussustainability/greeningclass/fall2008.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151109231238/http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/members.asp to http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/members.asp

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150103085822/http://www.brandeis.edu/opir/institutionalresearch/pdfs/CDS_2012-2013_Final.pdf to http://www.brandeis.edu/opir/institutionalresearch/pdfs/CDS_2012-2013_Final.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2014/april/commencementupdate.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304034408/http://thebrandeishoot.com/articles/14184 to http://thebrandeishoot.com/articles/14184
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-kelly-file/transcript/2014/04/10/exclusive-ayaan-hirsi-ali-withdrawal-honorary-degree
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://time.com/56111/ayaan-hirsi-ali-they-simply-wanted-me-to-be-silenced/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2014/04/10/hats-brandeis-university%20%3D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/brandeis-university-cancels-plans-to-give-ayaan-hirsi-ali-an-honorary-degree/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-09-06/news/9009060613_1_brandeis-university-altman-university-of-california

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819070303/http://www.brandeis.edu/gps/students/studentresources/policiesprocedures/academicintegrity.html to http://www.brandeis.edu/gps/students/studentresources/policiesprocedures/academicintegrity.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ramdasstapes.org/biography.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213034511/http://www.blc.org/members/current-members to http://www.blc.org/members/current-members
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140625155811/http://www.nscaatv.com/rankings/2274/NCAADivisionIII/women/National/Poll3 to http://www.nscaatv.com/rankings/2274/NCAADivisionIII/women/National/Poll3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140403132648/http://www.itatennis.com/AwardsAndRankings/Rankings/2013-14_ITA_Division_III_Men_s_Rankings/Division_III_Men_s_National_Rankings_-_March_27.htm to http://www.itatennis.com/AwardsAndRankings/Rankings/2013-14_ITA_Division_III_Men_s_Rankings/Division_III_Men_s_National_Rankings_-_March_27.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140420024104/http://www.itatennis.com/AwardsAndRankings/Rankings/2013-14_ITA_Division_III_Women_s_Rankings/Division_III_Women_s_National_Rankings_-_April_10.htm to http://www.itatennis.com/AwardsAndRankings/Rankings/2013-14_ITA_Division_III_Women_s_Rankings/Division_III_Women_s_National_Rankings_-_April_10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615130320/http://www.brandeis.edu/campussustainability/newsevents/accomplishments.html to http://www.brandeis.edu/campussustainability/newsevents/accomplishments.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Eleanor Roosevelt as alumni?? Timeline doesn't add up.

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.

Professor

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)