Talk:Mike Duke

College fraternity edit undone

I undid this good-faith edit as his college fraternity is not related to his notability and he's not so famous that it's inherently notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone put it back. Rather than revert-war I'm asking both the original contributor and the 2nd editor to explain why the information is encyclopedic. If I get no answer I may remove it again after a day or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

Now that he's going to be the next CEO of the biggest company on the Fortune 500 he needs a better bio. I'm sure Wal-Mart's official bio will be beefed up a bit but we need more third-party sources.

Things to add:

• Sections, including a brief personal life section with hometown, current spouse, number of children, notable awards, education, current activities outside Wal-mart, pre-Wal-Mart career including significant achievements and significant employers
• Dates on all significant activities. When was he at Federated and what was his position?
• An infobox and if possible, a photo
• Of course, if any of those things can't be reliably sourced, especially personal and historical information, it can be left out.

• A criticism or similar section, if he or any of his major decisions have resulted in notable public backlash.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

birthday?

 Done

there is an error in his birthday. it states december 0. Can someone please change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.231 (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Controversy" section

This section seems to be based on a single blog posting and a reference to that blog post in The Advocate. While I'm sure better sources can be found, this is the very definition of "undue weight". I'm removing it per WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed here. -shirulashem^(talk) 13:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted again; calling it controversy doesn't mean we just ignore the BLP policy. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Since people don't seem to getting it, here's what's wrong with this section - the Advocate's website (which is a fine magazine and reliable source) is simply reporting what the blog (an unreliable source) said. The blog is using a copy of a petition to include a an initiative on the ballot. We can't know if Mike Duke was the signer, even if the address and birth info appear to be correct, hence the WP:OR problem. Even if he was the signer, we don't know that how he voted on the ballot. Even he did support the inclusion of the initiative on the ballot and voted for it, this isn't controversial. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the measure, according to the WP article on it, the initiative was agreed to by a majority of voters in Arkansas. Including these suppositions, even if it were possible to prove them, is clearly in violation of WP:UNDUE. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The "original source" of a reliable source is not our concern. We could not have verified the accuracy of what Deep Throat was claiming forty years ago, and it wouldn't have been our job... It was the job of The Washington Post. When The Advocate, a reliable source, reports on or publishes something, we rely on their editorial judgment, not our own. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is outrageous that two editors continue to put this material back in. After two editors and one admin feel there's a potential BLP problem, and two editors feel otherwise, obviously there is no consensus to keep the material in the article. This content has absolutely no business in the article until a consensus is reached. -shirulashem^(talk) 00:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There's very little on Wikipedia that's "outrageous." Two good faith editors seeing absolutely no wp:blp violation is not outrageous. However, there is nothing in wp:blp that says "the content must stay out" until there's some sort of unanimous consent that it should go back in. If you continue to feel that there is a wp:blp violation, even after my comments on wp:v and wp:rs above, then please elaborate, don't just revert and start calling every editor who disagrees with you "outrageous." user:J aka justen (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There's of course nothing wrong with disagreeing. As I wrote in my previous post, the problem I see here is that there are editors who feel that this content could violate BLP, and other editors disagree and proceed to just put the info back in. All I'm saying is that while there is such a disagreement on any article, especially on a BLP, we all must be patient and wait until the matter is resolved. I never said that we have to be unanimous ... I wrote consensus. And since part of BLP is "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic," we need to keep the content out of the article until the consensus is reached either between us or through some kind of dispute resolution. Here's what I propose that I think might be helpful. Let's work on two things: 1. Try to find at least one completely neutral source for the petition, and 2. Let's try to build more content about other things to address Delicious carbuncle's WP:UNDUE concern. -shirulashem^(talk) 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Actually there is an imperative in WP:BLP about unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material in a BLP - this is not debatable as such. I consider material tracing to a blog to be intrinsically "poorly sourced" and I consider charges about the intent of a person to be "contentious" per se. This does not require "unanimity" -- it does require a better source as a minimum. Collect (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any support for your position at WP:RS. Material that is "poorly sourced" is one thing; questioning the journalist's judgment or sourcing from a (so far) undisputed reliable source is quite a different matter. Once we establish a source is a reliable one, and we have relatively objective criteria for that, then we can't pick and choose which of their articles we believe are properly vetted or not. They vetted the blog and its arguments, and published them on their own. Again, once a reliable source publishes something, we can't say "Well, I don't like their editorial process in this case." It's highly subjective, and has no basis in our policies here. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

J, I've already addressed this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, in reply to your earlier comment. Can we please keep the discussion in one place (i.e., there)? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your reply there was threaded but out of chronological sequence, I apologize for missing it. I have responded there. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Board memberships

My name is Anna, and I work at Walmart. This bio contains old information, so I’m proposing removing old board memberships and adding Mike Duke’s current memberships. He is no longer a board member of Retail Industry Leaders of America and no longer on the Arvest Bank community advisory board, so those organizations should be removed.

Mike Duke serves on the board of directors of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the board of directors of The Consumer Goods Forum, the executive committee of Business Roundtable and is on the executive board of Conservation International's Center for Environment Leadership in Business. He also serves on the board of advisors for the University of Arkansas and the advisory board of the Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management in Beijing, China. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna20 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

References
http://www.rila.org/about/leadership/bod/Pages/default.aspx
http://investors.walmartstores.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112761&p=irol-govboard
http://www.ciesnet.com/1-wweare/1.3-board/index.asp
http://www.businessroundtable.org/about/executive_committee
http://www.conservation.org/sites/celb/about/Pages/executive_council.aspx
http://www.sem.tsinghua.edu.cn/portalweb/appmanager/portal/semEN;SEMPORTALJSESSIONID=lt8NMvJSfXJ29GBJSywHvvRL732m2pTnmCphykd8LhLGJsq49MTy!238891110?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=P1407944651267852132798
http://www.nae.edu/nae/naepub.nsf/Members+By+UNID/4DACD9C2E022ECA0862576CD005EAB5B?opendocument Anna20 (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

References

walmart1percent.org

Appears to fail WP:RS by a few miles. Collect (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Duke. 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/20090221011857/http://www.deltasig.org/about/distinguished_alumni to http://www.deltasig.org/about/distinguished_alumni

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) 05:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Duke. 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/20120831074012/http://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/1-wweare/1.3-board/index.asp to http://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/1-wweare/1.3-board/index.asp

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) 08:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)