Jump to content

Talk:Duke University/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Notable Alumni

Should Paul Farmer be added to the list of notable alumni?

Paul farmer has multiple books written about him. He's equally famous to the other's included in this section, I don't think there's any question he should be included. I added two names to the list of current NBA players from Duke: Luol Deng and Corey Maggette. Also, I fixed the link to Chris Duhon's Wikipedia page. - DukeGrad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.137.52 (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion of Christian Laettner from the Notable Alumni section and linked his name to the exsiting article in Wikipedia. --Hennap (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Duke Blue

hey someone change this pic to the official duke blue color #003893. thanks. DP08 (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit to the Athletics: Rose Bowl was not the national championship in 1938

I deleted the reference to the Rose Bowl as the national championship game that season: up until the 1960s, the national champion was selected before the bowl season by the AP and equivalents. In the 60s people finally realized that selecting a national champion, only to have them lose in their bowl game, was silly. This is the basis for why several schools are now claiming new championships from this period, but also why the Rose Bowl couldn't have been considered a "championship game" --at best it established a champion. Here's a reliable link that mentions what I'm talking about. --Bobak (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Now having been in existence over 2 years, http://www.duiki.com has become a definitive source of information about Duke University and will not likely be supplanted by any other wiki. With the inclusion of the Chronicle as a mainstream media source its only right to include an alternative perspectiove. Readers of the Duke article will also find it useful to read: perspectives about the university written by current and former students, guides to student life, and information all about Duke and Durham all published from the perspective of those who live and work at Duke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.78.87 (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I know you want to include Duiki because you created it and clearly you've done a lot of work in all your endeavors, but it's an embellishment to say it "has become a definitive source of information about Duke University." The Chronicle gets around 75,000 online readers DAILY. Duiki has had 218,937 in two YEARS for around 300 readers daily (according to [1]). How can a source with 250 times as few hits be compared to the Chronicle? They are not even close to the same level. Please see conflict of interest, which should already be aware of due to your creation of LA Wiki and its subsequent deletion proceedings. You should also know to sign your posts. I'll leave the external link for now, but really it shouldn't stay and you haven't established notability. Take it easy, -Bluedog423Talk 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What other alternative Duke-focused media do you know of? Even if the Chronicle has 99% market-share, it is the only alternative media outlet there is for Duke. In that sense, it is very important. --152.3.78.87 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps more importantly, it is the largest and most popular independent college wiki that exists. It used to be CaseWiki except it is not independent of its university it turns out. --152.3.78.87 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't really care if it's included in the external links or not. It certainly doesn't hurt the article as a whole and isn't blatant advertising or anything. It's also a fairly informative website...but it certainly is not obvious that it should be included. I just don't want to go down a slippery slope - if Duiki is important enough for inclusion, why not Duke Health System, Duke hospital, Pratt's webpage, Trinity's webpage, Duke University archives, etc.? In any event, I'm not going to remove the link for now. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Bluedog423Talk 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"one of the the nation's elite"

The sentence stating that Duke's athletic program is "one of the nation's elite," though true, strikes me as POV. Can anyone think of a way to reword it? LaszloWalrus (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, after the sentence is a reference to the Director's cup standings supporting this assertion, but I do understand your point. The athletics section is more descriptive about how it's "one of the nation's elite" and says "In the past ten years, Duke has finished in the top 30 every year in the NACDA Director's Cup, an overall measure of an institution's athletic success. In the past three years, Duke has finished 11th (2007), eighth (2006), and fifth (2005)." While this is more NPOV, it's difficult to replicate this in the concise manner that the lead requires. I think it might make sense to have an addendum to the reference so that it serves also as a footnote (that includes this additional information about Director's Cup standings). I don't think it'd make sense to have that much detail in the lead. Or, if you wanted you could say something like "its athletic program is historically ranked among the top fifteen in the nation according to NACDA Director's Cup standings." That's as concise as I could make it. -Bluedog423Talk 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. I'll wait a while to see if anyone objects, or comes up with something else. Then, I'll change it. LaszloWalrus (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi, I don't go to Duke but Duke's athletic is one of the country's best. It might be POV so how about change that to some concerete facts instead? However, I still think you should keep that line. (One of the nation's elite is an understatement.) Duke actually does a lot better than that. Firewal2 (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Organization and administration section

I note that this article doesn't appear to have any section dedicated to describing the organization and administration of the university. Per WP:UNIGUIDE, might we devote some space for the structure of the administration, current leadership, budget, relationship with a board of trustees, formal affiliations or relationships with other universities in NC, student and faculty government, endowment information, academic divisions of the college/university, membership in major consortium or other inter-university organizations, etc.? Madcoverboy (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead citation

I'm looking at the citation for the statement about how Duke's athletic programs are part of "the nation's elite", and all I see is a list of links (of what, I don't know). I would suggest refining the citation so that it's easier for the casual reader to find where it is said that Duke's part of the nation's elite. If the citation doesn't say that itself (e.g., if it's a set of winning statistics or something -- I have no idea, I know nothing about sports, collegiate or otherwise), then it might be original research or synthesis and should be removed or modified to state just what the source says. Either way, I'd lean towards removing the word elite anyway since it does more to prop up the Duke sports teams than supply any substantive description or details.– DroEsperanto(t / c) 02:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Duke Wikiproject?

Doesn't anyone think there should be a wikiproject for Duke-related articles as there is for Cornell University??? Rsteilberg 15:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteilberg (talk • contribs)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Serious clean up of the Alumni section needed. Adding rationale to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Duke University/archive2. —Eustress talk 00:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Affiliation

Dear User:Bluedog423, I noticed that you removed referenced information regarding the affiliation of Duke University with The United Methodist Church. I would like to provide you with some references from the university, Church, and secondary sources that discuss the topic:

The website of Duke University has an article titled "Duke University's Relation to the Methodist Church: the basics," which states:

Duke University has historical, formal, on-going, and symbolic ties with Methodism, but is an independent and non-sectarian institution.

In an article titled Duke University's Relation to the Methodist Church, which is taken from the university website, it states:

The relationship between the institution now known as Duke University and the United Methodist Church has evolved over more than a century and a half. In governance, the Charter of Duke University notes that the Trustees "shall be a body politic and corporate under the name and style of `Duke University,' and shall have perpetual existence.." The purposes for which the body is organized are, among others, "to acquire, own, operate, provide, maintain and perpetuate an institution of higher learning.." Membership of the Trustees shall be, in addition to the President of the University, "thirty-six elected Trustees, twelve elected by the North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church; twelve by the Western North Carolina Conference of the said church; and twelve by the graduates of said University; provided, however, that no person shall be elected a Trustee till he has first been recommended by a majority of the Trustees present at a regular meeting.."

The website for the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities states that the denomination Duke University is affiliated with is United Methodist. Moreover, an article titled "United Methodist schools score high in rankings" from The United Methodist Church also lists Duke University there. In addition, the website for the College Board also states that Duke University is affiliated with the United Methodist Church. Per WP:RS, the sentence in the article should not be removed as it is properly buttressed by these, as well as other references. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Anupam - thanks for you comments and contributions to the article. Here are my thoughts on the matter. The only authoritative source on if Duke University is affiliated with the United Methodist Church is Duke itself. Thus, if Duke has a differing position on the matter than other sources, Duke's statement is what we need to take as fact. Methodist sources obviously have incentive to play up their significance on as many quality institutions of higher learning as possible, which is fine, but they clearly are a bit biased in suggesting that perhaps any loose connection is an official "affiliation." Having said that, you've linked and quoted the direct source of Duke's position on the matter, which I appreciate. They attempt to directly clear up any confusion and the source states, "Duke University has historical, formal, on-going, and symbolic ties with Methodism, but is an independent and non-sectarian institution." That, to me, directly states that Duke is NOT directly affiliated with the Methodist Church - otherwise, it wouldn't be an "independent and non-sectarian institution." It would be instead "affiliated with the Methodist Church."
To have it in the infobox that the religious affiliation is the "United Methodist Church" is misleading in my mind to readers as it pits Duke in the same light as BYU or Notre Dame, for example, wherein the Church actually has an active role as to current decisions that shape the university unlike at Duke. Thus, I modified the infobox to be clear to readers and stated what Duke suggested above and wrote "historical and symbolic ties to the Methodist Church, but independent in its governance." On another note, as you seem to be more well-versed in Methodism than I am, is there any difference between the "United Methodist Church" and simply the "Methodist Church."? It seems that in all Duke literature, the latter is used and not the former (except when mentioning the Divinity school, which the church has a more active influence on). Perhaps the United Methodist Church is a more recent offshoot of the generic Methodist movement - thus, stating "United" in and of itself seems misleading in my mind as Duke never uses that word (unless the United Methodist Church and Methodist Church can be used interchangeably).
By the way, I am not trying to downplay or eliminate any mention of the Methodist Church in the Duke article, as certainly over history it has played a role in shaping the university. In fact, the second sentence of the article states "Founded by Methodists" and the influence of the Methodist Church is mentioned heavily in the history section of the article, both of which I personally added to the article. In addition, the statement that "The university has 'historic and symbolic ties to the Methodist Church but it always has been independent in its governance'" is in the Academic Profile section (which I wrote there), which you placed a variation of in the lead.
I did not remove any information or references that you added except that I feel mentioning the above statement in the Academic Profile section is sufficient enough and saying it in the lead is repetitive and not necessary as its not one of the key summary points of the article per WP:LEAD. The only things I eliminated were the paragraphs of quotes in the Notes section from each reference, which are unnecessary as the reader can easily click the link if they want the quote in full and made the section more gangly than it already is. I kept the single quote from the Duke source you mentioned above, which is shorter, clearer and states Duke's position on the matter for clarity. The Duke Chapel, built from 1925 to 1930, was even constructed as an interdenominational facility - that would seem odd for an institution if it was clearly affiliated with the Methodist Church.
In my opinion, I believe the founding aspects of the university and its ties to Methodism and the influence of the Church throughout history should be clearly detailed in the article. And they are. These facts are mentioned in the lead "founded by Methodists", the history section, the more detailed history article, as well as the Academic profile section (which I largely contributed to). I think there should be no mention of a religious affiliation in the infobox at all as this seems to be misleading to readers when Duke itself states its a "non-sectarian" institution. Duke states is it not directly actively affiliated with the Church. But if you absolutely insist that it must be in the infobox, stating the full information per Duke's source is more appropriate to give the reader a full view on the situation. I am attempting to give readers a full accurate description of the relationship. And, again, I don't see this "historical and symbolic" relationship significant enough to warrant mentioning three times in the article and it seems more appropriately placed in the history and academic profile section than the lead.
One last note - here is the quote I was using as I realize there are two similar ones from the Duke sources: "historic and symbolic ties to the Methodist Church but it always has been independent in its governance." Full article
Cheers, -Bluedog423Talk 17:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"formal" and "ongoing" clearly indicate affiliation with the Church. The infobox should display: "Methodist, sectarian" with a footnote containing an explanation. We have to accurately describe the relationship, even if it appears to us to be contradictory. Comparisions to BYU & ND are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. – Lionel (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Lionel. Did you mean to write the infobox should display "Methodist, non-sectarian"? That would be fine with me and I think makes it clearer. Also, I guess it depends how you define "affiliated" - I'm not sure I've seen a clear definition and I haven't seen any Duke literature that explicitly states the university is affiliated with the Church - that's all I was saying. If Duke is officially "affiliated" with the Church, I'd think there'd be some Duke source using that terminology. Again, previously the infobox had written: "historic and symbolic ties to the Methodist Church but independent in its governance," so it's not as if it excluded it completely there anyways. But perhaps that's too verbose for an infobox. -Bluedog423Talk 18:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Getting back to the definition of "affiliated." Duke refers to itself as a "nonsectarian institution." Merriam Webster defines nonsectarian as such: "not having a sectarian character : not affiliated with or restricted to a particular religious group." Definition Thus, based on the definition of the word and the fact that Duke explicitly states its "nonsectarian" suggests to me that it's not an "affiliation" but rather a relationship that should be detailed in the text of the article (which it already is). Otherwise, you'd have to argue that either Duke is using "nonsectarian" incorrectly or that Merriam Webster has an incorrect definition. Unless I'm misunderstanding something. Or I suppose one could argue that its simply nonsectarian because the institution isn't "restricted to a particular religious group." Let me know your thoughts. Regards, -Bluedog423Talk 16:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear User:Bluedog423, Happy Thanksgiving! I noticed your changes to the article and am fine with them. I have clarified "Methodism" to "The United Methodist Church" as there are several Methodist denominations in the United States, such as the Free Methodist Church and African Methodist Episcopal Church. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks! -Bluedog423Talk 18:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear User:Bluedog, I think it is best to keep the information in the lead. This is because the affiliation of a university is considered a key feature. Websites such as The Princeton Review usually present this information in their introduction to the university as well. Thanks for your understanding. I hope this helps and that you are looking forward to this coming Christmas. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_28#File:Duke.gif.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

reverted vandalism by . 152.23.230.246

This page was recently vandalized. Please monitor unsigned edits for future problems --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:JamesDukeStatueAndChapel1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JamesDukeStatueAndChapel1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:JamesDukeStatueAndChapel1.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Religious engagement

Here's the section added by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duke_University&oldid=642795335 64.136.192.229 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The university has "historical, formal, on-going, and symbolic ties" with the United Methodist Church, but is a nonsectarian and independent institution.[1][2][3][4] In January 2015,in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, Duke announced that Duke's Muslim community would begin chanting the call to prayer from the Duke Chapel bell tower on Fridays, representing "a larger commitment to religious pluralism that is at the heart of Duke’s mission."[5] Duke reversed their decision a day later, saying its effort to "unify was not having the intended effect."[6] Franklin Graham, who had encouraged donors to withhold support over the plan to allow the call-to-prayer, endorsed the reversal.[6]

No mention of award winners in introductory paragraphs

Most of Duke's peer universities include information about affiliates who have received prestigious honors in their introductory paragraphs. Duke is affiliated with 8 Nobel laureates (Hans Dehmelt, Charles Townes, Robert Coleman Richardson, Brian Kobilka, Peter Agre, Robert Lefkowitz, Gertrude Elion, and George Hitchings), at least 40 American Rhodes scholars (several Marshall, Churchill and Truman scholars as well), and 3 Turing Award winners. There should be some mention of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.136 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 51 external links on Duke 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).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

On the removal of "one of the top-ranked ranked schools" in the introduction

This is a step in the right direction for the Duke article which has other "booster" issues as well. Totally disagree with the comment below starting with "absolutely absurd". That smacks of pro Duke propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.169.128.50 (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The main reason is that it is a fuzzy label. What exactly qualifies as a "top-ranked school"? Top 20 (which it isn't on almost all national rankings)? Top 50? Top school where? Worldwide? It seems to me that the rankings already provided under "Rankings and reputation" do a great job conveying exactly where this school is ranked. Readers can decide for themselves whether to give it the subjective label of a top-ranked school based on the numbers. Any other way is a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV.

Signed, 24.211.136.174 (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

^ Absolutely absurd. Duke has almost never been ranked outside the top 10 by US News (which is the most widely read ranking in the country). It is ranked third by USA Today, 7th by Business Insider, and is the 13th best private university in America according to Forbes. When you average the three major global rankings (THE, QS and ARWU) Duke is ranked 20th in the world. It is also 20th in the world according to US News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.139.115 (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

An unregistered editor is edit-warring to insert material along these lines in the lead without discussion here so I'll open the discussion.

  • The material begins with the statement "Duke is consistently included among the best universities in the world by numerous university rankings," which is supported by two citations: World University Rankings|publisher=Time 2015 THE rankings and 2015 QS World rankings. It seems obvious to me that cherry-picking two specific rankings from one specific year in no way supports the assertion that this university is "consistently" included in these and other rankings.
  • The material continues with "... and among the most innovative universities in the world." supported only by one reference to a 2015 ranking of universities by Rueters. Once again, I fail to see why this one specific ranking created in one year rises to the level of a sweeping statement that belongs in the lead.
  • The material next notes that " According to a study by Forbes, Duke ranks 11th among universities that have produced billionaires." This is supported by links to the 2008 study and the 2010 study. This is followed by similar statements that "In a corporate study carried out by The New York Times, Duke's graduates were shown to be among the most sought-after and valued in the world" (supported with the obvious link) and "and Forbes magazine ranked Duke 7th in the world on its list of 'power factories' in 2012." (also supported by the obvious link). This bit of material isn't bad.

The most significant and pressing problem with all of this material is that it's all been hand-collected by one or Wikipedia editors to construct a novel argument about the prestige of this university. In other words, if this information really is noteworthy then editors should be able to find authors who have already said it. If you are having to go on a long chase to dig up specific references to databases, tables, or specific facts to link together in an argument then you're doing something wrong in writing an encyclopedia article.

To be blunt, if an editor believes that this article needs to say something about Duke being one of the best universities in the world then he or she needs to find several excellent sources that explicitly say just that. If you need help, take a look at the lead sentence of Harvard University that not only includes some of these kinds of rankings and studies but also includes other sources that are much more explicit and wide-ranging. ElKevbo (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement

As long as entries are factual and correctly sourced I see no reason why they should be removed. This does not happen on other university pages. The fact that Duke is being unfairly targeted is lamentable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonsnow200393 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Definitely reads like an ad for Duke but it is not alone in this among wiki articles on Universities. A more balanced approach would be welcome and more in line with wiki articles in other areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.169.128.50 (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense in my opinion. Every ranking has been appropriately referenced. The tone is matter of fact. Articles about schools like the University of Chicago are much less objective according to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.146 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I realize you're saying that the article was fine, but I did remove some academic boosterism in the lead to clean things up a bit (de-emphasizing rankings and the like) based on any concerns around this. (I was not the one who put that tag up). -Bluedog423Talk 19:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DU

I just wanted to note that "DU" is in the university's crest. Therefore, the university calls itself DU in this form, at least. Now, whether that is a common abbreviation is left up to us editors. I really don't care if it's included or not. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on Duke 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).

  • 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) 14:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Boosterism in lead remains thick

Regardless of how this material is sourced, there's presently more boosterism in the lead than a balanced article would contain (the standard here is not Duke vs every other horrible university lead). The real test is that the casual reader who reads only the lead is left knowing very little about Duke at all, after folding the many raves into a mental synopsis, "flush, influential, renowned for both academics and sports, and probably prone to insufferable horn tooting". That's all I retained from two large paragraphs. I doubt I'm alone. — MaxEnt 05:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree in that it seems that someone had in mind the four-paragraph rule and decided to stuff half of it with non-summarizing ranking material. Also, given this is a research university, there is no mention of significant achievements of such. And what about their fine athletics program, especially in basketball? Yes, this needs rework. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Duke 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).

  • 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) 02:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Duke 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).

  • 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) 03:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

some proposed changes

update endowment value under section Administration and Organization so it matches more recent value on right sidebar. On June 30, 2016, endowment value was $6.8 billion. Here is the link used in sidebar: http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2016-Endowment-Market-Values.pdf

Disclosure: I am an editor at Duke University. Pismo01 (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)pismo01 [7]

Pismo01 (talk)Pismo01

@Pismo01:  Done Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Duke 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).

  • 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) 01:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Duke 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).

  • 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) 15:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke 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).

  • 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) 15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke 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).

  • 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) 10:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke 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).

  • 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) 09:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent promotional edits by IPs affiliated with Duke

Especially concerning, since this was a featured article, and ought to receive especially strong attention to recognize and prevent such edits. The lede could use a few more eyes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The Nobel laureates are mentioned in complete different contexts. One is a simple enumeration (a feature of many university pages). The second highlights the fact that Duke has achieved research prominence in recent years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.237.226 (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Rankings in Lede

Every other university's page has references to rankings and prestige in the lede (almost excessive in the case of schools like Yale). I have added a well sourced claim that Duke is generally ranked among the top 10 US universities by a number of credible publications. Any changes to this lede should be considered a form of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.237.226 (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent history section

This section contains a number of disjoined factoids. All of the info is well-supported and important, but presented in a disorganized fashion. I am planning to rearrange, etc. Comments & suggestions are welcome.

Intend to revise in groups of related changes, for ease of discussion, if discussion is needed. Thanks!

Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 00:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

FA in need of review

This is an older FA in need of review. Some issues:

  • This article is really long, see WP:SIZE. It was promoted in 2006 with 50kB, passed FAR in 2011 with 115kB and right now is at 174kB. It just keeps growing and acquiring unsourced content;
  • One example of bloatedness is the Notable People section. We have List of Duke University people already, and the 10 or so random names I picked from the Notable section were also on the List of Duke University people. Why do journalists and businesspeople need to be mentioned on both articles? Half of the names in the Notable section are really OR, as there are no sources to support their inclusion;
  • The article currently does not meet MOS:SANDWICH and the image/tables placement is poor around the Admissions subsection;
  • There's unsourced text in the article;
  • I can't verify anything on that paragraph about the Nasher Museum of Art by browsing the link provided (http://www.nasher.duke.edu/) - fails WP:V;
  • ImDb used twice in a FA?
  • There's a bit of puffery going on, with sentences like:
  • Duke has pioneered studies involving nonlinear dynamics, chaos, and complex systems in physics. (unsourced)
  • Forbes magazine ranked Duke 7th in the world on its list of 'power factories' in 2012. (no it did not, the author is named as Contributor, with the disclaimer that "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own");
  • In 2016, Forbes ranked Duke sixth on its list of "Expensive Schools Worth Every Penny". - the source is this, a single picture.
  • (so many rankings, are all of these relevant?);
  • References need clean up, several of them are incomplete;
  • The WP:LEAD "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". Currently, we have:
  • National Science Foundation and their ranking of Duke mentioned once in the lead, never again in the article;
  • Clarivate Analytics and their ranking of Duke mentioned once in the lead, never again in the article;
  • their status as an employer mentioned in the lead, not in the article;
  • the lead is not a concise overview of the topic because it fails to mention anything about student life and athletics, for instance.

Article needs significant work. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Updates regarding recent changes to housing policy

Duke has made some significant changes regarding its housing policies in the past years that have mostly to do with decreased support for Greek like and a ban on "non-Greek selective living". They are beginning to phase in a residential college system similar to Yale's. Information under the corresponding section should probably be updated, but it is worthwhile to keep info about how the system worked in the past? DobroHoras (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

An editor just made deletions, asserting that faculty only refers to those with a PhD. I would ask that the editor show the source for that assertion. Or self-revert, if no proper source exists.

That editor also asserted - which is clearly untrue - that university articles that have standalone lists cannot reflect notable faculty on the main page of the university. There is no such rule. And as the editor would know if they look at other university articles — their bald, unsupported assertion is frankly at odds with practice. So that assertion is made up.

As was a past assertion by this editor on the number of years the editor would have one believe the person is required to have been teaching at the university.

If these are simply concocted by the editor, but passed off as rules, that would be of concern, as we assume good faith, but this would be a disturbing pattern. --2603:7000:2143:8500:D929:8DE5:5DEA:62B0 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"See also"

Currently a growing list of faculty/alumni is being added here. That doesn't really make sense, especially given it is a non-inclusive list and a category already exists for faculty. Along with a list of alumni and faculty already included in the section.

It would be better to discuss why these particular faculty members are notable in the body of the article. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Duke University's Relation to the Methodist Church: the basics". Duke University. 2002. Retrieved 2010-03-27. Duke University has historical, formal, on-going, and symbolic ties with Methodism, but is an independent and non-sectarian institution.
  2. ^ Separated brethren: a review of Protestant, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox & other religions in the United States. Our Sunday Visitor. 2002. ISBN 978-1-931709-05-7.
  3. ^ "Duke University". International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities (IAMSCU). Retrieved 2007-06-30.
  4. ^ "United Methodist schools score high".</refin rankings|publisher = The United Methodist Church|accessdate = 2007-06-30}}
  5. ^ Sapp, Christy Lohr (January 14, 2015). "At Duke Chapel, welcoming Muslims with a call to prayer". News & Observer. Retrieved 2015-01-16.
  6. ^ a b Gallman, Stephanie (January 14, 2015). "Duke reverses decision to allow Muslim call to prayer". CNN. Retrieved 2015-01-16.
  7. ^ http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2016-Endowment-Market-Values.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duke_University/Archive_4&oldid=1220335113"