text:
Talk:Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun

Untitled
Stop writing rubbish about extremely dodgy legal claims made by television documentaries. Ta. Proteus (Talk) 16:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont think this page is implying he IS king? I think it is only suggesting that,the docco presents an arguement that the bloodline was incorrect..... Fix it if you think the writing is POV.. hell I didnt write any of it! - UnlimitedAccess 17:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I wasn't talking to you. :-) (And I've rewritten it before, and people just come along and insert rubbish again. I'm too tired at the moment. I'll do it later...) Proteus (Talk) 18:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know.. :P, okay you do it when you feel up for it.. just dont go overkill on the "even if he wants to be king he cant be because it doesnt work that way".. :P - UnlimitedAccess 18:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) Your going to ban me for that comment arent you.. :P - UnlimitedAccess 19:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it is quite sad of this man to support an Austrailian republic but at the same time keep his peerage which originates from rayaly. Give his son the earldom not this buffoon of a selfish republican. God Save the Queen.

 * The material in this article on the historical titles in which the English crown descended is very interesting and useful. I wonder, though, if it is appropriate to the article on Lord Loudoun.  Is there somewhere else we could logically move it to? john k 22:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * To the anonymous "rayal"ist: I notice that most of the article refers to "Abney-Hastings" rather than "Lord Loudoun"; it would appear that he does not use the title, so don't blame him for having it. Upon inheriting the title in 2002 he had one year to disclaim it for life under the Peerage Act 1963; perhaps he was not a firm republican at that time, or did not choose to bother with the formality.  (Later insertion: Maybe he promised his mother not to. 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)) Meanwhile the Crown can accelerate his baronies to his heir apparent (if any; the article doesn't say there is one), but not the earldom itself, although in older times Scots peerage titles could be transferred at the will of the holder on consent of the Crown.  —Tamfang 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)  (Yes, this is an American anarchist expounding on peerage law.  It's a funny old world.)

 * To reply two years later: I'm afraid writs of acceleration were abolished in 1999. Craigy (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That article says only that they lost their usefulness in 1999. —Tamfang (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Still a sad little republican though. God Save the Queen. Oh no I cant belive I spelled royalty, rayal. Oh bugger.

Does he have a claim to the throne at all?
Why is the legitimacy of either Edward IV, or any member of the House of York, relevant to the legitimacy of the current monarchy? Henry VII (who succeeded the House of York in 1485) had nothing to do with the House of York- the Tudor family was a cadet branch of the House of Lancaster, descended from John of Gaunt son of Edward III (and therefore, as per the requirement given on the page, descended from Henry II in a fully legitimate line, if John of Gaunt's children by Katherine Swynford are accepted as legitimate). All subsequent monarchs' claims to the throne are based on their descent from Henry VII. Mick is unfortunately not descended from Henry VII. B.t.w. I am a repubican, but not for reasons concerning the royal family's ancestry! BartBassist (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Cf. act of settlement...it's an act of the Parliament anyway --82.113.121.103 (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Tone of article
Some parts of the article are not encyclopedic in tone, for example asking questions and answering them. Andjam 03:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It also lacks sources. Andjam 04:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the part about opposition to the claim. It should exist elsewhere in the wikipedia. Andjam 00:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, i find the latest edits from 86.41.190.241 to be non encyclopedic. Appears to be the persons own views put forward inappropriatly. If no objections, i will revert or remove the section they wrote. Exodus87 14:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

compare to Edward IV
more learned minds might think differently, but as a layperson it does seem to me that the story told of the contested crowning of Edward IV on the Edward IV of England page is stating objections that are only countered on this page; this is maybe another good reason to centralize the succession discussion to one common page linked into the various participant pages.

God save King Mick. How could anyone not support a fork-lift driving Aussie king named Mick? --64.235.110.181 12:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I lol'ed
- UnlimitedAccess 02:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 *

Long Live Mick!!
I've only seen the docco 'Britain's Real Monarch' on Australian tv once. Play it EVERYDAY!!! so everyone knows!! It's time the Queen & her families to stand down & pay back the money we've been sending them!! They are NOTHING!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!! Mick wants a republic for Australia, so that's what he'll get:) Long Live Mick!!

 * I don't think the Queen is getting any money from Australia. john k 04:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Royal visits are fully paid for by the Australian government though - UnlimitedAccess 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The royal family no longer has any political power. They are simply figure heads. Virgosky 15:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That needs to be removed.

Place of Birth?
Where was he actually born? It just says "British born" and mentions the fact that he studied at Ampleforth College (in North Yorkshire) before moving to Australia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ashby de la Zouche --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this for sure? After looking around the net a bit more, I've found sources saying that is where he grew up (in Leicestershire). But the only source I could find for actual place of birth was "Sussex". Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm not sure. It was a presumption.  If you have a source saying this then no doubt it's accurate.  He did live in Ashby though. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

 * According to the England & Wales Births Index of September 1942 (as Michael E. Lord), his birth was registered in the district of Uckfield, so Sussex seems to be correct. Craigy (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A non existant throne
To avoid an edit war I am going to post my plea here instead. If nobody challenges it I shall reinstate the previous (and in my opinion, correct version): Up and till recently this article had a sentence stating that "M. A-H. had a claim to the nonexistent English throne". This sentence has been continuously removed and no proper argument has been given other than "English is a monarchy". To which my reply can only be "Nowadays England is part of a monarchy but is no longer a monarchy in its own right. The Kingdom of England (and thus also its throne) merged with Scotland under the Acts of Union 1707 and later again under Act of Union 1800 to become the United Kingdom". I'm sure everyone here will agree that it is important to add that the throne to which Michael has a claim is now nonexistent. Looking forward to a reply. Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what you're getting at now. It needs explained though, most people wouldn't get that. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall try and clarify... = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * *Comes back rather puzzled* How ought I to go about doing so? I can't seem to find an appropriate place to do so! --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "nonexistent English throne (given that the currant monarch is Queen of the United Kingdom)" perhaps?--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes it sounds as though England is the predecessor of the UK though...--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the documentary made the point that Loudoun would not consequently be a pretender to the UK throne, then how about "... the Throne of England, had it still existed as a separate kingdom"? -- Jao (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Brilliant jao, would you do the honours? --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and edited the article accordingly. -- Jao (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The documentary doesn't make that point at all though, as it is called "Britain's Real Monarch" rather than "England's Real Monarch". On that basis I'm afraid I'll have to revert. The article should be in a simple NPOV form, not with hostle "____ doesn't exist anyway" attacks in the very opening line and all of that. I'm trying to keep good faith, but have to question Camaeron's motives, since he has previously tried to get this article deleted and then has gone on to try and dismiss Abney-Hastings as just a "rice researcher", now this. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dismiss him as a rice-researcher? I merely pointed out you where leaving his profession out of the intro! Stating that the throne no-longer exists is NPOV and is very important! The title 'Britains real monarch' is flawed anyway as he would only have been monarch of England! --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS:Might I also note that it was not me that made the actual edit (and thus have refrained from editing the article myself due to POV). Jao very kindly made the edit after discussing the situation here first. Thanks again Jao...--Cameron (t|p|c) 10:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Out of curiousity, have you actually watched the documentary? because the view your putting into the intro isn't the argument made in it at all. It argues that Edward was illegitimate and thus every monarchal act afterwards was illegitamate too, this would could include the Union of the Crowns so "had it still existed as a separate kingdom" is not the argument presented in the documentary, nor is it a relevent "condition" to the documentaries alternate history. Watch the documentary first, or if you can find one, read a review of it. Nowhere mentioned is a conditional "had it still existed...". That is WP:OR.

 * PS, you may not have made the actual edit, but you entirely instigated it and explicitly asked for it to be made. Though I'm not sure why since you're perfectly capable of editing? Also, its perfectly reasonable to question your motives when considering the article's history, since you did indeed try to get it deleted (with all seven people disagreeing with you), and did indeed try to have the intro as just "______ is an Australian rice researcher", when that clearly isn't why he is worthy of an article. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I did watch the documenary. I laughed all the way through it...= )!I am fully aware that the documentary argues that "Edward was illegitimate and thus every monarchal act afterwards was illegitamate too, this would could include the Union of the Crowns so..." and so forth. But fact is that the union was legal and thus the information needs to be added. He is a pretender...but to a non existant throne..surely that is notable? I think so!--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I would ask you to adhere to WP:AGF and let us concentrate on the facts and not any of my previous mishaps...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I think it is important that his claim is to the English throne, not the British one, but if one sees the heirs of Clarence as the legitimate Kings, in the same way as the Jacobites see the Stuarts and their heirs, the union would have be invalidated being approved by a foreign monarch. In fact, because of the Act of Settlement, you can not both claim the Earl as King and have the union be valid. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"Lord" Mauchline
It refers to a barony, I presume? Only using Lord is fine in the article but where the children are listed we should use the correct titles.

Children's Courtesy Titles
In the table of Mr Abney-Hastings' children, their courtesy titles are prefixed with "The". I happened to be reading Wikipedia's lengthy article on courtesy titles and it says that they never have a "The" prefix, because "The" indicates the substantive holder of a title. Does anybody know better? Should I – or someone else – remove the "The"s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.198.124 (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Pretender?
Can you legitimately call someone a pretender, who "has expressed no interest in pursuing his claim to the nonexistent throne, although he is amused by it." This whole claim violates WP:FRINGE. Agricolae (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the word Pretender means that someone believes that he should have the throne. You don't actually have to believe it yourself to qualify for the word.Pacomartin (talk)

 * The way it is used in wikipedia, is someone who has a claim to a throne, whether or not anyone advances it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Competing claims
This is fundamentally and article about the man. It has to include the claim as presented by Britain's Real Monarch because were it not for this WP:Fringe BBC Channel4 production, Abney-Hastings would not merit a page at all. The rest of the discussion of rights to rule is less appropriate, primarily talking about what arguments could be made, and not what arguments have been made in scholarly discussion of the issue (which has received no traction at all in the scholarly literature). Editors shouldn't be arguing the issue themselves. I have removed it all. Agricolae (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial Date of Pretender Claim
Michael's only uncle died in WWII in 1944 when Michael was 2 years old. At the time his grandmother would have still been the queen in the alternative royal line. Under normal rules the throne would have passed to Michael's mother in 1960 when his grandmother died. He would have inherited the alternative throne in 2002 when his mother died. So following the normal rules of male preference primogeniture he would have become king in 2002 at the age of 60. I do not understand the comments about his claim dating back to 1944. Someone made up that section. The BBC website says clearly that both his grandmother and his mother should have been queens. I elect to remove all references to his uncle.Pacomartin (talk)

I believe it's based on the idea that women can only transmit claims to the throne, not reign themselves, which was supposedly a principle of English medieval law. So, basically, complete OR. john k (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Queens did not rule England until Mary. Typically lines of alternate succession assumes that the rules of succession do not change, but the Channel 4 website lists Queens as ruling, a list based on older succession rules and would be kings, may give you a different "real monarch" Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Whether using modern or medieval law, he would still be King either way. It's just a question of when he would succeed...1944 or 2002. 41.132.117.121 (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Abney-Hastings would be the monarch based on an unbroken line of Male Preference Primogeniture
OK so if this is an unbroken male line,   how come the actual list of his descent from Edward III  at the "alternative succession to the british throne" article  includes Anne de Mortimer and Catherine Hastings in it ? Eregli bob (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Not to mention the also "broken" male line from Henry I through Matilda to Henry II.Eregli bob (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Article on his death with a bit more info on family line
Here is an article I found on him that may be of use to editors it gives a little more detail on the claim than is presented in the wiki-article here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9373273/Rightful-king-of-England-dies-in-Australia.html --Wowaconia (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun. 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/20120502174423/http://tributes.heraldsun.com.au/obituaries/heraldsun-au/obituary-search.aspx?daterange=1&countryid=11&stateid=201&affiliateid=2413 to http://tributes.heraldsun.com.au/obituaries/heraldsun-au/obituary-search.aspx?daterange=1&countryid=11&stateid=201&affiliateid=2413
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703043313/http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=82386&paper=67&cat=207 to http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=82386&paper=67&cat=207

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun. 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 tag to http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal43865
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419115107/http://www.jerilderie.nsw.gov.au/index.php?option=com_jentlacontent&view=article&id=64433:councillor-michael-abney-hastings&catid=1322:councillors-jerilderie&Itemid=1833 to http://www.jerilderie.nsw.gov.au/index.php?option=com_jentlacontent&view=article&id=64433:councillor-michael-abney-hastings&catid=1322:councillors-jerilderie&Itemid=1833

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


text:
Portal:Association football/Opentask

 * Create: Eckehard Feigenspan • Dieter Stinka • Erich Meier • Zeferino Borges • Ernesto Pellegrini • Czechoslovak First League or Czechoslovak League Championship • Gino Stacchini • Czechoslovak Cup • Marcio Santos • Totonero scandal • São Paulo Madrid • Manuel Tinaia • Teodoro "Lolo" Fernández • Royal League 2007/2008 • more...

 * Stubs: Afro-Asian Club Championship • Akratitos • Australia women's national football (soccer) team • Barra Brava • Boldklubben 1909 • Clean sheet • Club Deportivo Tenerife • Football in France • Football in Norway • Galáctico • Ian Pearce • Jan Polák • Los Angeles Aztecs • Meistriliiga • NK Orijent • Odd Stadion • GNFA 1 • Reserve team • Ryavallen • Tartan Army • Youth system more...

 * Wikify: Burwood Soccer Club • Djoliba AC • Fransa-Pax Football Club • Fußball-Bundesliga 2003/04 • Luxembourg Football League • Football in China

 * Cleanup: Northern premier league premier division controversy 2005 • Archie MacPherson • 1925 in Norwegian football • Football in Poland more... • List of German football players with dual nationality

 * NPOV: 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies • Darko Pančev

 * Expand: Ellis Park Stadium • 2005 Royal League Final • List of UEFA Champions League broadcasters

 * Peer review: Roy of the Rovers • David Beckham

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Portal:Association football/Opentask


text:
Institutional review board

An institutional review board (IRB), also known as an independent ethics committee (IEC), ethical review board (ERB), or research ethics board (REB), is a committee at an institution that applies research ethics by reviewing the methods proposed for research involving human subjects, to ensure that the projects are ethical. The main goal of IRB reviews is to ensure that study participants are not harmed (or that harms are minimal and outweighed by research benefits). Such boards are formally designated to approve (or reject), monitor, and review biomedical and behavioral research involving humans, and they are legally required in some countries under certain specified circumstances. Most countries use some form of IRB to safeguard ethical conduct of research so that it complies with national and international norms, regulations or codes.

The purpose of the IRB is to assure that appropriate steps are taken to protect the rights and welfare of people participating in a research study. A key goal of IRBs is to protect human subjects from physical or psychological harm, which they attempt to do by reviewing research protocols and related materials. The protocol review assesses the ethics of the research and its methods, promotes fully informed and voluntary participation by prospective subjects, and seeks to maximize the safety of subjects. They often conduct some form of risk-benefit analysis in an attempt to determine whether or not research should be conducted.

IRBs are most commonly used for studies in the fields of health and the social sciences, including anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Such studies may be clinical trials of new drugs or medical devices, studies of personal or social behavior, opinions or attitudes, or studies of how health care is delivered and might be improved. Many types of research that involves humans, such as research into which teaching methods are appropriate, unstructured research such as oral histories, journalistic research, research conducted by private individuals, and research that does not involve human subjects, are not typically required to have IRB approval.

United States mandate for IRBs
Formal review procedures for institutional human subject studies were originally developed in direct response to research abuses in the 20th century. Among the most notorious of these abuses were the experiments of Nazi physicians, which became a focus of the post-World War II Doctors' Trial, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, a long-term project conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service, and numerous human radiation experiments conducted during the Cold War. Other controversial U.S. projects undertaken during this era include the Milgram obedience experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, and Project MKULTRA, a series of classified mind control studies organized by the CIA.

The result of these abuses was the National Research Act of 1974 and the development of the Belmont Report, which outlined the primary ethical principles in human subjects review; these include "respect for persons", "beneficence", and "justice". An IRB may only approve research for which the risks to subjects are balanced by potential benefits to society, and for which the selection of subjects presents a fair or just distribution of risks and benefits to eligible participants. A bona fide process for obtaining informed consent from participants is also generally needed. However, this requirement may be waived in certain circumstances – for example, when the risk of harm to participants is clearly minimal.

In the United States, IRBs are governed by Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46. These regulations define the rules and responsibilities for institutional review, which is required for all research that receives support, directly or indirectly, from the United States federal government. Specifically, research on human subjects that is conducted by any institution must be reviewed by that institution's review board if it is not an exempt type and it also involves:
 * is conducted by the federal government,
 * involves any type of federal funding (e.g., a research grant from the National Institutes of Health), or
 * testing an FDA-regulated product.

Additionally, the states of California or Maryland have more expansive rules for reviewing research that is conducted within those two states. Many institutions that engage in substantial amounts of research, such as research universities and research hospitals, have their board reviews all research programs, even though it is not required, as a matter of their own internal policy.

IRBs are themselves regulated by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Additional requirements apply to IRBs that oversee clinical trials of drugs involved in new drug applications, or to studies that are supported by the United States Department of Defense. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the OHRP have empowered IRBs to approve, require modifications in planned research prior to approval, or disapprove research. IRBs are responsible for critical oversight functions for research conducted on human subjects that are "scientific", "ethical", and "regulatory". The equivalent body responsible for overseeing U.S. federally funded research using animals is the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).

In addition to registering its IRB with the OHRP, an institution is also required to obtain and maintain a Federalwide Assurance or FWA, before undertaking federally funded human research. This is an agreement in which the institution commits to abiding by the regulations governing human research. A secondary supplement to the FWA is required when institutions are undertaking research supported by the U.S. Department of Defense. This DoD Addendum includes further compliance requirements for studies using military personnel, or when the human research involves populations in conflict zones, foreign prisoners, etc.

Exceptions
U.S. regulations identify several research categories that are considered exempt from IRB oversight. These categories include:
 * Research in conventional educational settings, such as those involving the study of instructional strategies or effectiveness of various techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods. In the case of studies involving the use of educational tests, there are specific provisions in the exemption to ensure that subjects cannot be identified or exposed to risks or liabilities.
 * Research involving the analysis of existing data and other materials, where the data is either already publicly available or will be analyzed such that individual subjects cannot be identified.
 * Studies intended to assess the performance or effectiveness of public benefit or service programs, or to evaluate food taste, quality, or consumer acceptance.

Generally, human research ethics guidelines require that decisions about exemption are made by an IRB representative, not by the investigators themselves.

Additionally, research projects conducted outside of a federal government agency or government-funded institution, such as a citizen science project conducted by a private individual or a group of private individuals, are generally not required to be approved by any institutional review board, unless the project is funded by the US federal government.

International ethics review committees
Numerous other countries have equivalent regulations or guidelines governing human subject studies and the ethics committees that oversee them. However, the organizational responsibilities and the scope of the oversight purview can differ substantially from one nation to another, especially in the domain of non-medical research. The United States Department of Health and Human Services maintains a comprehensive compilation of regulations and guidelines in other countries, as well as related standards from a number of international and regional organizations.

Naming and composition
Although "IRB" is a generic term used in the United States by the FDA and HHS, each institution that establishes such a board may use whatever name it chooses. Many simply capitalize the term "Institutional Review Board" as the proper name of their instance. Regardless of the name chosen, the IRB is subject to the US FDA's IRB regulations when studies of FDA-regulated products are reviewed and approved. At one time, such a committee was named the "Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects".

Originally, IRBs were simply committees at academic institutions and medical facilities to monitor research studies involving human participants, primarily to minimize or avoid ethical problems. Today, some of these reviews are conducted by for-profit organizations known as independent or commercial IRBs. Anyone, including private individuals, can pay a commercial IRB for review. The responsibilities of these IRBs are identical to those based at academic or medical institutions, and within the US, they are governed by the same US federal regulations.

While its composition varies, it often includes a balance of academia and non-academia members. This serves to provide a greater scope of understanding which helps ensure ethics in research. In the US, regulations set out the board's membership and composition requirements, with provisions for diversity in experience, expertise, and institutional affiliation. For example, the minimum number of members is five, at least one scientist, and at least one non-scientist. The guidance strongly suggests that the IRB contain both men and women, but there is no regulatory requirement for gender balance in the IRB's membership. The full requirements are set out in 21 CFR 56.107.

As IRBs are normally staffed with employees, who have to be paid, there are costs to operating them. In 2001, the cost of operating an IRB typically ranged from about $75,000 to $770,000 ($ to $, after accounting for inflation) per year, depending on the volume of research reviewed.

Convened and expedited reviews
Unless a research proposal is determined to be exempt (see below), the IRB undertakes its work either in a convened meeting (a "full" review) or by using an expedited review procedure. When a full review is required, a majority of the IRB members must be present at the meeting, at least one of whom has primary concern for the nonscientific aspects of the research. The research can be approved if a majority of those present are in favor.

An expedited review may be carried out if the research involves no more than minimal risk to subjects, or where minor changes are being made to previously approved research. The regulations provide a list of research categories that may be reviewed in this manner. An expedited review is carried out by the IRB chair, or by their designee(s) from the board membership. In the US, research activity cannot be disapproved by expedited review.

Pharmaceutical trials and good clinical practice
The International Conference on Harmonisation sets out guidelines for registration of pharmaceuticals in multiple countries. It defines Good Clinical Practice (GCP), which is an agreed quality standard that governments can transpose into regulations for clinical trials involving human subjects.

Here is a summary of several key regulatory guidelines for oversight of clinical trials:
 * Safeguard the rights, safety, and well-being of all trial subjects. Special attention should be paid to trials that may include vulnerable subjects, such as pregnant women, children, prisoners, the elderly, or persons with diminished comprehension.
 * Obtain trial protocol(s)/amendment(s), written Informed Consent Form(s) (ICFs) and consent form updates the investigator proposes for use in the trial, subject recruitment procedures (e.g., advertisements), written information to be provided to subjects, investigator's brochure, available safety information, information about payments and compensation available to subjects, the investigator's current curriculum vitae and/or other documentation evidencing qualifications, and any other documents the IRB may need to fulfill its responsibilities.
 * Review both the amount and method of payment to subjects to assure neither presents problems of coercion or undue influence on the trial subjects. Payments to a subject should be prorated and not wholly contingent on completion of the trial by the subject. Information regarding payment to subjects, including the methods, amounts, and schedule of payment to trial subjects, should be set forth in the written informed consent form and any other written information to be provided to subjects. The way payment will be prorated should be specified.
 * Ensure that the proposed trial is reviewed within a reasonable time and document opinions and decisions in writing, clearly identifying the trial, the documents reviewed and recorded dates for approvals, required modifications prior to approval, disapproval of a proposed trial, or termination/suspension of any prior approval. Continuing review of ongoing trials is required at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk to human subjects, but at least once per year.

The reviewers may also request that more information be given to subjects when, in their judgment, the additional information would add meaningfully to the protection of the rights, safety and/or well-being of the subjects. When a non-therapeutic trial is to be carried out with the consent of the subject's legally acceptable representative, reviewers should determine that the proposed protocol and/or other document(s) adequately address relevant ethical concerns and meets applicable regulatory requirements for such trials. Where the protocol indicates prior consent of the trial subject or the subject's legally acceptable representative is not possible, the review should determine that the proposed protocol and/or other document(s) adequately addresses relevant ethical concerns and meets applicable regulatory requirements for such trials (i.e., in emergency situations).

Adapting IRB review to social science
While the Belmont Principles and U.S. federal regulations were formulated with biomedical and social-behavioral research in mind, the enforcement of the regulations, the examples used in typical presentations regarding the history of the regulatory requirements, and the extensiveness of written guidance have been predominantly focused on biomedical research.

Numerous complaints by investigators about the fit between the federal regulations and its IRB review requirements as they relate to social science research have been received. Broad complaints range from the legitimacy of IRB review, the applicability of the concepts of risk as it pertains to social science (e.g., possibly unneeded, over-burdensome requirements), and the requirements for the documentation of participants' informed consent (i.e., consent forms). Researchers have tried to determine under what instances participants are more likely to read informed consent forms, and ways to improve their efficacy in the social sciences. IRB members have been criticized for assuming that surveys about past trauma has a re-traumatizing effect. Social scientists have criticized biomedical IRBs for failing to adequately understand their research methods (such as ethnography). For this reason, some large research institutions have set up multiple specialized IRBs, and may have one committee that exclusively oversees social science research.

In 2003, the US Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), in conjunction with the Oral History Association and American Historical Association, issued a formal statement that taking oral histories, unstructured interviews (as if for a piece of journalism), collecting anecdotes, and similar free speech activities often do not constitute "human subject research" as defined in the regulations and were never intended to be covered by clinical research rules.

Other US federal agencies supporting social science have attempted to provide guidance in this area, especially the National Science Foundation. In general, the NSF guidelines assure IRBs that the regulations have some flexibility and rely on the common sense of the IRB to focus on limiting harm, maximizing informed consent, and limiting bureaucratic limitations of valid research.

Adapting IRB review to big data research
Aspects of big data research pose formidable challenges for research ethics and thus show potential for wider applicability of formal review processes. One theme is data breaches, but another with high difficulty is potentially dangerous predictive analytics with unintended consequences, via false-positives or new ways to invade privacy. A 2016 article on the hope to expand ethics reviews of such research included an example of a data breach in which a big data researcher leaked 70,000 OkCupid profiles with usernames and sexual orientation data. It also gave an example of potential privacy invasion and government repression in which machine learning was used to build automated gaydar, labeling strangers as "probably gay" based on their facial photographs. Analogies with phrenology and Nazis identifying people as "probably part-Jewish" based on facial features have been made to show what can go wrong with research whose authors may have failed to adequately think through the risks of harm. Such challenges broach familiar themes, such as mistaken identity, pre-crime, and persecution, in new applications.

Relationship with citizen science
Generally speaking, citizen science, whether conducted by a single private individual or a group of individuals, is not required to follow the IRB process. This is true even if some of the individuals involved are professional researchers or are also employed at institutions that normally review all research conducted by the institution.

However, many academic journals require proof of IRB approval for all human-subject research, even when it is not legally required, which means that citizen scientists may be unable to publish scientific papers describing their findings. Citizen scientists who expect to need IRB approval for publication or to comply with the terms of a research grant can pay a commercial IRB company. In the US, a standard initial review often costs a few thousand dollars; a review to determine that the project is less expensive.

The IRB-based approach to ethics assumes that human-subject research is conducted by an institution employing researchers, and that the institution and researchers have far more power and knowledge than the participants. The researchers and the participants are seen as distinct groups, and the concern is to prevent the researchers from exploiting the participants as a means to an end. This leads to IRBs issuing requirements such as having researchers explain the research project and obtain informed consent. However, this model does not always fit citizen science projects, especially when the participants are themselves the experts and researchers. In such cases, a requirement to explain the project means participants would absurdly be informing themselves of their own plans. In a citizen science project, the boundaries between the researcher and the participant are blurred. Similarly, many institutionally-driven research programs are limiting or prohibiting the return of results to individuals, especially for genetic or medical studies, for fear that some participants could be harmed if they misunderstand the results. In this restrictive model, the participant never finds out their test results, or they can only find out their test results if the researchers carefully explain the results to them. But in a citizen science project, learning the results is a highly desired reason for participating, and, since the researchers are themselves participants, it would be impossible to prevent them from obtaining the results.

Managing conflicts of interest
While the IRB approval and oversight process is designed to protect the rights and welfare of the research subjects, it has been the subject of criticism, by bioethicists and others, for conflicts of interest resulting in lax oversight. In 2005, the for-profit Western Institutional Review Board claimed to conduct the majority of reviews for new drug submissions to the FDA. In a 2006 study of 575 IRB members at university medical centers, over one-third reported industry financial ties, and over one-third admitted they "rarely or never" disclosed conflicts of interest to other board members.

In 2009 the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) set up a series of undercover tests to determine whether the IRB system was vulnerable to unethical manipulation. In one test, a fake product "Adhesiabloc" was submitted to a number of IRBs for approval for human tests. The product, company, and CVs of the supposed researchers were all fictitious and documents were forged by the GAO. The product was deliberately formulated to match some "significant risk" criteria of the FDA and was described by GAO as a "gel that would be poured into a patient's stomach after surgery to collect the bits and pieces left over from an operation." Despite this, one IRB approved the device for human testing. Other IRBs to whom the device was submitted rejected the application, one of them saying it was "the riskiest thing I've ever seen on this board". However, none of the IRBs approached detected that the company and product were fake. The GAO also set up a fake IRB and obtained requests for approval from companies. They succeeded in getting assurance approval from the HHS for their fake IRB. At the time, the US HHS has only three staff to deal with 300 IRB registrations and 300 assurance applications per month. HHS stated that it would not be worthwhile to carry out additional evaluation even if they had the staff to do it.

title: Institutional review board


text:
Standard Deviants

Standard Deviants (originally The Standard Deviants) was a series of educational videos produced in the United States. The name also referred to the troupe of actors and comedians who presented the series. The series is owned by Cerebellum Corporation, founded in the Washington, D.C. area by George Washington University alumni Chip Paucek and James Rena, who created the series to help students learn using humor. As such, the series blended essential information with humorous examples and comic sketches. For example, the English punctuation video illustrates the usage of exclamation points through a sketch in which two characters excitedly play Battleship. The series was originally targeted at college students, but its intended audience became progressively younger over time, eventually described as "for junior high, high school, college and beyond".

The original videos, which typically had running times of 1–2 hours, were later adapted into Standard Deviants TV, a series of fifty-two 26-minute episodes on PBS from 2000–2002. They were then retrofitted again into shorter videos for the K-12 school market, which as of 2024 are packaged as two lines: Standard Deviants School and Standard Deviants Teaching Systems.

Cerebellum also created two other series, both short-lived. No-Brainers, described as "The Video Guides to Life", featured the same cast (but without the Standard Deviants name) in videos about various life skills, targeted at adults rather than students. The series comprised 12 videos, two of them adapted from Standard Deviants videos, released in 1998 and 1999. Later, Jibberboosh was a series of two videos for preschoolers, released in 2002.

Cast

 * Brad Aldous (1996–99)
 * Gelila Asres (1994–2002)
 * Trina Baker (2001–02)
 * Amrita Bessin (1997–98)
 * Mike Birbiglia (1998–99)
 * Herschel Bleefeld (1997–2002)
 * Ken Bon (2000)
 * Andy Campbell (1999–2002)
 * Strawberry Catubo (1999)
 * Peggy Chang (2000–02)
 * Rob Cohen (1997)
 * Brian Coleman (1997)
 * Misha Collins (1999)
 * Diane Cooper (1998–99)
 * Desmond Dutcher (1998–99)
 * Matt Flanagan (1998–99)
 * Ashley Fleming (1997–2000)
 * Andre Fontanelle (1998)
 * Tim Gore (1998–2002)
 * Lara D. Hopewell (1997–2003)
 * Beth Kirkpatrick (1997–99)
 * Jeremy Klavens (1997–2002)
 * Kristjana Knight (1998–2003)
 * Michael LeFort (1994–96)

 * Peter Makrauer (1997)
 * Leon Mandel (1998–99)
 * Jamie Marass (2002)
 * Chas Mastin (1994–2000)
 * Walter Mastrapa (1997–98)
 * T.J. Miller (2000–03)
 * Tessa Munro (1997–2002)
 * Chris Noll (1997–99)
 * Jennifer O'Brien (2001–02)
 * Billy Portman (1997)
 * Shaun Powell (1997–2000)
 * Andrew Ritter (1997)
 * KenYatta Rogers (1999–2003)
 * Alissa Rosen (1994–96)
 * Deena Rubinson (1997–99)
 * Andrea Shreeman (1995–96, 1999–2002)
 * Ptolemy Slocum (1998–2002)
 * Gabrielle Smith (1996–97)
 * Malcolm Smith (1997)
 * David Sturdevant (1997–2000)
 * Christy Trapp (2000)
 * Shannon Ward (1997)
 * Kerry Washington (1997)
 * Andrew Wynn (1998–99)
 * Regan Wynne (1998–99)

Producers

 * Lara D. Hopewell (1997–2002)
 * Michael LeFort (1994–96)
 * Chip Paucek (1994–2002)
 * James Rena (1994–2002)
 * David Sturdevant (2000–02)

Directors

 * Aldo Bello
 * Robert Deege
 * Joseph Doria
 * Danielle Fenati
 * Christopher Fetner
 * Sam Genovese
 * Alpesh Patel
 * Jon Reich

Sciences and technology

 * Anatomy (1997)
 * Astronomy (1997)
 * Biology (1996)
 * Chemistry (1996)
 * Organic chemistry (1997)
 * Dinosaurs (2001)
 * Geology (1997)
 * HTML (1999)
 * Internet basics (1999)
 * Nutrition (1998)
 * Physics (1996, rev. 1998)

Mathematics

 * Algebra (1996)
 * Pre-algebra (1998)
 * Basic math (1997)
 * Calculus (1995, rev. 1998)
 * Pre-calculus (1996)
 * Differential equations (1998)
 * Geometry (1996, rev. 1999)
 * SAT Math (1999)
 * Statistics (1994, rev. 1998)
 * Trigonometry (1997)

Social sciences

 * American government (1999)
 * Psychology (1997)
 * Sociology (1997)
 * World geography (2002)

Business

 * Accounting (1995, rev. 1997)
 * Business law (1997)
 * Economics (1995)
 * Macroeconomics
 * Microeconomics
 * Finance (1994, rev. 1997)
 * Marketing (1999)

World languages

 * French (1998)
 * Italian (2000)
 * Spanish (1997)
 * Advanced Spanish (2002)

English language

 * English composition (1997)
 * English grammar (1999)
 * English punctuation (2000)
 * ESL (2003)
 * SAT Verbal (1999)

Literature

 * Shakespeare tragedies (2000)
 * Fantasy literature (2001)

Life skills
These titles were released as the No-Brainers series:
 * Auto Care (1998)
 * Buying a Car (1998)
 * Cooking (1998)
 * Dating (1998)
 * Entertaining at Home (1999)
 * Interviewing (1998)
 * Personal Finance (1998)
 * Public Speaking (1998)
 * Résumés and Cover Letters (1998)
 * Taxes (1999)
 * Wine (1998)

title: Standard Deviants


text:
Big bet

A big bet (BB) is the larger of two fixed bet amounts in a fixed-limit poker game. A big bet is used in the final rounds of a game to increase the pot amount and thereby enable the possibility of a bluff. Big bets are generally double the wager of the initial or small bet. Any multi-round poker game can use big bets to standardize wagers while maintaining a sufficient risk-ratio to encourage bluffing. Casino poker tables use big bets to set a limit to the amount of money a patron can lose in each wager.

Statistical analysis
Big bets are used in place of variable limit raises to add considerable risk to staying in a game until a hand is shown. This added risk enables other players to bluff or to win a considerable pot when proving that they weren't bluffing. Other methods of adding structure to poker games include buy-in limits and maximum raise limits. Some sort of table or bet limits are required in poker to keep a person with the "deepest pockets" from "buying the game."

Examples
While any multi-round poker game can use big bets, the unlimited buy-in nature of casino style play is best suited for BB limits. Casinos can advertise the relatively low maximum wager of the BB as a way of attracting players, and players can join the table at any time.

Casino-style draw poker
Big bets are used in draw poker during the final round of betting to weed out tentative players. In theory, only those committed to their hand after seeing their final cards will be motivated to wager twice as much as their previous bet. In practice, however, additional motivation for players to fold is usually needed in a single draw game such as: a half-pot limit, a pot limit, or a spread limit. No limit poker is only employed when table limits are imposed, thereby disallowing casino guests to join the table after play has started.

Texas hold 'em
In a $2/$4 Texas hold 'em game, the big bet would be $4, wagered in each bet of the last two cards. The $2 would be the small bet, wagered during all other bets of the game. Given that a small bet is generally half of a big bet and that a small blind is generally half of the small bet, the minimum BB in casino style holdem is four cents. On the other side of the scale, the largest required BB in regular play is that of $8000 at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. At this table, professionals like Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey, Daniel Negreanu, Chau Giang, and Gus Hansen, along with wealthy tourists, are required to wager $8000 in each bet of each of the final two rounds of the game.

Omaha hold 'em
Big bets are used in Omaha poker to allow buy-ins of players at any time. Omaha Eight-or-Better has a greater odds of winning and therefore less motivation to fold with a tentative hand. For that reason Omaha Eight-or-Better is sometimes played in a pot limit betting structure instead of big bets.

Casino-style seven-card stud
Big bets are used in seven-card stud, generally after the last upcard, to motivate tentative players who already have a lot of money in the pot to fold anyway. By the last upcard, seven-card stud players have wagered an ante and three rounds of betting. With that much money already in the pot, there is little motivation to drop out during the final two rounds of betting, especially when there is a possibility that another player may be bluffing. The effect of adding the requirement of a big bet to the final two rounds of seven-card stud betting is that the game becomes one more of skill than of luck.

title: Big bet


text:
Tony Award for Best Lighting Design

This is a list of winners and nominations for the Tony Award for Best Lighting Design for outstanding lighting design of a play or musical. The award was first presented in 1970. Since 2005, the category was divided into Lighting Design in a Play and Lighting Design in a Musical with each genre receiving its own award.

Winners and nominees
{{legend|#B0C4DE|indicates the winner}}

Multiple wins

 * 9 Wins

 * Jules Fisher

 * 8 Wins

 * Natasha Katz

 * 5 Wins
 * Brian MacDevitt
 * 4 Wins

 * Kevin Adams

 * 3 Wins

 * Neil Austin
 * Andrew Bridge
 * Peggy Eisenhauer
 * David Hersey
 * Tharon Musser

 * 2 Wins

 * Christopher Akerlind
 * Howell Binkley
 * Paule Constable
 * Donald Holder
 * Bradley King
 * Jennifer Tipton
 * Hugh Vanstone

Multiple nominations

 * 24 Nominations
 * Jules Fisher

 * 15 Nominations
 * Natasha Katz

 * 14 Nominations
 * Donald Holder
 * 12 Nominations
 * Brian MacDevitt
 * 11 Nominations
 * Kenneth Posner
 * 11 Nominations
 * Kenneth Posner

 * 9 Nominations
 * Ken Billington
 * Howell Binkley
 * Peggy Eisenhauer
 * Tharon Musser

 * 8 Nominations
 * Paul Gallo
 * Kevin Adams

 * 7 Nominations
 * David Hersey

 * 6 Nominations
 * Paule Constable

 * 5 Nominations
 * Christopher Akerlind
 * Martin Aronstein
 * Peter Kaczorowski
 * Jennifer Tipton
 * Neil Austin
 * Hugh Vanstone

 * 4 Nominations
 * Neil Peter Jampolis
 * Justin Townsend
 * Allen Lee Hughes

 * 3 Nominations
 * Andrew Bridge
 * Pat Collins
 * Mark Henderson
 * Thomas R. Skelton
 * Ben Stanton
 * Jan Versweyveld
 * Jane Cox
 * Bradley King

 * 2 Nominations
 * John Bury
 * Ian Calderon
 * Howard Harrison
 * Peter Mumford
 * Richard Nelson
 * Jiyoun Chang
 * Jon Clark

title: Tony Award for Best Lighting Design


text:
Lied für Sachsen-Anhalt

The Lied für Sachsen-Anhalt (Song for Saxony-Anhalt) is a regional anthem of the German state of Saxony-Anhalt. The use of this anthem was encouraged by the first minister-president of the country to strengthen the feeling of cultural identity in the new-founded state.

title: Lied für Sachsen-Anhalt


text:
Assemblage (art)

Assemblage is an artistic form or medium usually created on a defined substrate that consists of three-dimensional elements projecting out of or from the substrate. It is similar to collage, a two-dimensional medium. It is part of the visual arts and it typically uses found objects, but is not limited to these materials.

History
The origin of the art form dates to the cubist constructions of Pablo Picasso c. 1912–1914. The origin of the word (in its artistic sense) can be traced back to the early 1950s, when Jean Dubuffet created a series of collages of butterfly wings, which he titled assemblages d'empreintes. However, Marcel Duchamp, Pablo Picasso and others had been working with found objects for many years prior to Dubuffet. Russian artist Vladimir Tatlin created his "counter-reliefs" in the mid 1910s. Alongside Tatlin, the earliest woman artist to try her hand at assemblage was Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven, the Dada Baroness. In Paris in the 1920s Alexander Calder, Jose De Creeft, Picasso and others began making fully 3-dimensional works from metal scraps, found metal objects and wire. In the U.S., one of the earliest and most prolific assemblage artists was Louise Nevelson, who began creating her sculptures from found pieces of wood in the late 1930s.

In the 1950s and 60s assemblage started to become more widely known and used. Artists like Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns started using scrappy materials and objects to make anti-aesthetic art sculptures, a big part of the ideas that make assemblage what it is.

The painter Armando Reverón is one of the first to use this technique when using disposable materials such as bamboo, wires, or kraft paper. In the thirties he made a skeleton with wings of mucilage, adopting this style years before other artists. Later, Reverón made instruments and set pieces such as a telephone, a sofa, a sewing machine, a piano and even music books with their scores.

In 1961, the exhibition "The Art of Assemblage" was featured at the New York Museum of Modern Art. The exhibition showcased the work of early 20th-century European artists such as Braque, Dubuffet, Marcel Duchamp, Picasso, and Kurt Schwitters alongside Americans Man Ray, Joseph Cornell, Robert Mallary and Robert Rauschenberg, and also included less well known American West Coast assemblage artists such as George Herms, Bruce Conner and Edward Kienholz. William C Seitz, the curator of the exhibition, described assemblages as being made up of preformed natural or manufactured materials, objects, or fragments not intended as art materials.

Artists primarily known for assemblage

 * Arman (1928–2007), French artist, sculptor and painter.
 * Hans Bellmer (1902–1975), a German artist known for his life-sized female dolls, produced in the 1930s.
 * Wallace Berman (1926–1976), an American artist known for his verifax collages.
 * Huma Bhabha (born 1962), a Pakistani-American sculptor, known for her uniquely grotesque, figurative forms that often appear dismembered.
 * André Breton (1896–1966), a French artist, regarded as a principal founder of Surrealism.
 * Steve Brudniak (born 1961) American artist, actor, and musician.
 * John Chamberlain (1927–2011), a Chicago artist known for his sculptures of welded pieces of wrecked automobiles.
 * Greg Colson (born 1956), an American artist known for his wall sculptures of stick maps, constructed paintings, solar systems, directionals, and intersections.
 * Joseph Cornell (1903–1972), Cornell, who lived in New York City, is known for his delicate boxes, usually glass-fronted, in which he arranged surprising collections of objects, images of renaissance paintings and old photographs. Many of his boxes, such as the famous Medici Slot Machine boxes, are interactive and are meant to be handled.
 * Rosalie Gascoigne (1917–1999), a New Zealand-born Australian sculptor.
 * Raoul Hausmann (1886–1971), an Austrian artist and writer and a key figure in Berlin Dada, his most famous work is the assemblage Der Geist Unserer Zeit – Mechanischer Kopf (Mechanical Head [The Spirit of Our Age]), c. 1920.
 * Romuald Hazoumé (born 1962), a contemporary artist from the Republic of Bénin, who exhibits widely in Europe and the U.K.
 * George Herms (born 1935), an American artist known for his assemblages, works on papers, and theater pieces.
 * Louis Hirshman (1905–1986), a Philadelphia artist known for his use of 3D materials on flat substrates for caricatures of the famous, as well as for collages and assemblages of everyday life, archetypes and surreal scenes.
 * Robert H. Hudson (born 1938), an American artist.
 * Irma Hünerfauth (born 1907), a German artist, known for her combine paintings, collages and assemblages, scrap sculptures, machines and kinetic art from found objects.
 * Jasper Johns (born 1930), an American Pop artist, painter, printmaker and sculptor.
 * Edward Kienholz (1927–1994), an American artist who collaborated with his wife, Nancy Reddin Kienholz, creating free-standing, large-scale "tableaux" or scenes of modern life such as the Beanery, complete with models of persons, made of discarded objects.
 * Lubo Kristek (born 1943), a Czech artist known for his critical assemblages of bones, traps, material cast out by the sea, waste and mobile phones (destructed in a happening).
 * Jean-Jacques Lebel (born 1936), in 1994 installed a large assemblage entitled Monument à Félix Guattari in the Forum of the Centre Pompidou.
 * Janice Lowry (1946–2009), American artist known for biographical art in the form of assemblage, artist books, and journals, which combined found objects and materials with writings and sketches.
 * Ondrej Mares (1949–2008), a Czech-Australian artist and sculptor best known for his 'Kachina' figures – a series of works.
 * Markus Meurer (born 1959), a German artist, known for his sculptures from found objects
 * Louise Nevelson (1899–1988), an American artist, known for her abstract expressionist "boxes" grouped together to form a new creation. She used found objects or everyday discarded things in her "assemblages" or assemblies, one of which was three stories high.
 * Minoru Ohira (born 1950), a Japanese-born artist.
 * Meret Oppenheim (1913–1985), a German-born Swiss artist, identified with the Surrealist movement.
 * Wolfgang Paalen (1905–1959), an Austrian-German-Mexican surrealist artist and theorist, founder of the magazine DYN and known for several assembled objects, f.e. Nuage articulé
 * Noah Purifoy (1917–2004), an African-American visual artist and sculptor, co-founder of the Watts Towers Art Center, and creator of the Noah Purifoy Outdoor Desert Art Museum. He is best known for his assemblage sculpture, including a body of work made from charred debris and wreckage collected after the Watts Riots of August 1965.
 * Robert Rauschenberg (1925–2008), painter and collagist known for his mixed media works during six decades.
 * Fred H. Roster (born 1944), an American sculptor.
 * Betye Saar (born 1926), American visual artist primarily known for her assemblages with family memorabilia, stereotyped African American figures from folk culture and advertising, mystical amulets and charms, and ritual and tribal objects.
 * Alexis Smith (born 1949) is an American artist best known for assemblages and installations.
 * Daniel Spoerri (born 1930), a Swiss artist, known for his "snare pictures" in which he captures a group of objects, such as the remains of meals eaten by individuals, including the plates, silverware and glasses, all of which are fixed to the table or board, which is then displayed on a wall.
 * Vladimir Tatlin (1885–1953), a Russian artist known for his counter-reliefs—structures made of wood and iron for hanging in wall corners in the 1910s.
 * Wolf Vostell (1932–1998), known for his use of concrete in his work. In his environments video installations and paintings he used television sets and concrete as well as telephones real cars and pieces of cars.
 * Gordon Wagner (1915–1987), was a pioneer in American assemblage art, who was known for his bazaar art, painting, poetry and writing.
 * Jeff Wassmann (born 1958), an American-born contemporary artist who works in Australia under the nom de plume of the pioneering German modernist Johann Dieter Wassmann (1841–1898).
 * Sara Rahbar (born 1976), sculptor, collagist, mixed media artist, best known for her flag series.
 * Tom Wesselmann (1931–2004), an American Pop artist, painter, sculptor and printmaker.
 * H. C. Westermann (1922–1981), an American sculptor and printmaker.
 * Jeffrey Vallance (born 1955), an American artist known for his assemblages, drawings, sculptures, paintings and conceptual art.

title: Assemblage (art)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Herring Artists

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JeremyA 13:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Red Herring Artists
I am highly sceptical of this entry. The author has no other edits, and his only comments on the Talk page are highly defensive. Also, the grammar, capitalisation, and punctuation throughout the article are substandard; at the very least, it has to be copyread and wikified. In addition, he has left the bottom two sections blank for the last three months. It seems to be promotional, and I only find 28 Google hits for it (not enough to substantiate it being "regularly the subject of academic papers on art history and the history of design"). Also, the entire entry has been plagiarised from the About.com topic about this artists' collective. 216.158.31.195 16:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, actually, the About.com article is the Wikipedia article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That too. 216.158.31.195 18:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is? All Google gives for the first sentence of the article is a Wikipedia mirror (answers.com).  Either way, only 28 Google results for "Red Herring Artists", and none for "Red Herring Artist Group" -> delete. --Idont Havaname 18:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My bad. You're right - it's not even about.com, it's answers.com. 216.158.31.195 18:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * try google '"red herring" art' returns 214,000 of which the first relevant entry is 11th - "red herring studios" gives 97 results - "red herring artist group" is not a term that applies or is used in reference to them. DavidP 02:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove unverifiable assertions (e.g. prizes allegedly won by artists who are not named, quoted opinion without source), condense into a sentence or two, and merge into Hove. --Tabor 19:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * assertions have been verified DavidP 02:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article doesn't appear to have satisfied any of the criteria for deletion under the deletion policy guidlines. it does not infringe any copyright, contains no useless directs or schemes gone awry and is not a source text nor dictionary definition. Perhaps you could consider it a vanity page - but if that were the case surely the author would have mentioned himself. (yes you've guessed - I was the original author, and I gain no benefit at all from the page). clearly the page has caused some concern and it is right to flag it up for consideration. in its defence I would like to say that it doesn't misrepresent anybody nor conflict with anybody elses interest. perhaps it deserves to be considered for cleanup or articles needing attention. But to delete it on the basis of its popularity or the number of hits it has had / google search results would surely endanger every page in wikipedia that wasn't of mainstream interest. A point of information for those not familiar with them, the Booker Prize is the most prestigious british literary prize, and the Turner Prize is the most prestigious british art award, i mention this because it might reflect on wether the subject of the page is 'notable' - I have remedied the lack of name or reference to the turner prize nominee.

Regarding 216.158.31.195's assertion that the page was plagiarised, that really is grasping at straws. It was not. I am sure that 216.158.31.195 (a username that redirects to Jasonglchu) is, as an undergradtuate, aware that academic papers are seldom published on the web and so will have little effect on their google presence. My apologies if this reply is too defensive or if my grammar is poor. ->Keep

DavidP 00:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate and share your concern that this page and your doubts about it are judged fairly and by as many people as possible user 216.158.31.195. why then did you delete the link (without explanation) from the red herring disambiguation page? Surely that is not very good form, it almost seems that you have decided that your decision is final. Or would you prefer that others dont stumble across this voting page who might have an interest in Red Herring but only those from the VFD page.

DavidP 00:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Baby Doll (wrestler)

Nickla Ann Roberts-Byrd (born February 13, 1962) is an American semi-retired professional wrestler and valet, better known by her ring name, "The Perfect 10" Baby Doll. She is best known for her appearances with World Class Championship Wrestling and Jim Crockett Promotions in the 1980s.

Professional wrestling career
Roberts was born in Lubbock, Texas to Nick Roberts and Lorraine Johnson. Both Nick Roberts and Johnson were professional wrestlers and promoted weekly events at the Fair Park Coliseum. During her childhood, Roberts sold programs at her father's events, in the process befriending future wrestlers Bruce and Keith Hart and Kerry and Kevin Von Erich. From an early age, Roberts aimed to become a professional wrestler.

World Class Championship Wrestling (1984)
In the summer of 1984, while training to become an emergency medical technician (EMT), Roberts overheard her parents say that her childhood crush, World Class Championship Wrestling (WCCW) wrestler Gino Hernandez, was in need of a valet. Unbeknownst to her parents, Roberts contacted David Manning, the WCCW booker, and proposed that she could manage Hernandez. After Manning agreed, Roberts left college and traveled to San Antonio, Texas, making her debut alongside Hernandez in the sold-out Freeman Coliseum. She went on to train under Nelson Royal for the remainder of the summer.

Performing under the ring name Andrea, the Lady Giant (a reference to André the Giant), Roberts was booked to dominate both male and female wrestlers in the ring. Her character had a punk haircut and typically wore leather pants, a leather jacket, metal studded belts, spiked dog collars and wristbands and scarves and T-shirts relating to rock bands such as Aerosmith and Mötley Crüe. Hernandez and Roberts feuded with Mike Von Erich and his manager, Sunshine.

Jim Crockett Promotions (1985-1987)
Roberts left WCCW in December 1984. In February 1985, she joined the National Wrestling Alliance member Jim Crockett Promotions (JCP). She was introduced by Tully Blanchard as his new manager, "The Perfect 10" Baby Doll. She assisted Blanchard during his feuds with Dusty Rhodes and Magnum T. A. After Rhodes defeated Blanchard for the NWA World Television Championship at The Great American Bash on July 6, 1985, Roberts was forced to be Rhodes' valet for 30 days. During this time, vignettes aired in which Rhodes tried to turn her into a "real lady."

In December 1985, JCP ran an angle to get J.J. Dillon in as Blanchard's manager. Baby Doll was missing from Blanchard's side for some time and then returned on December 28 at a house show. Tully confronted her in an interview and demanded to know where she had been. The angle played out that J.J. had given her a ticket to Mexico and said it was from Tully for her Christmas present. Dillon denied it and Tully hit Baby Doll who was then "saved" by Dusty Rhodes.

During a weekly Monday night television taping in Greenville, South Carolina in 1986, Jim Cornette and Beautiful Bobby Eaton attacked Roberts with a tennis racquet. She responded by introducing The Warlord as her newest client. The Warlord briefly feuded with Big Bubba Rogers before leaving JCP to further his training. At the 1986 Great American Bash on July 5, 1986, Roberts, Rhodes and Magnum T. A. defeated Cornette and The Midnight Express in a steel cage match. In addition to Rhodes and Magnum T. A., She also teamed with the Rock and Roll Express and the Road Warriors against Cornette and the Midnight Express throughout the 1986 Great American Bash Tour.

On August 23, 1986, Roberts turned on Rhodes, helping Ric Flair to keep the NWA World Heavyweight Championship during a title bout with Rhodes in St. Louis, Missouri. Roberts briefly managed Flair before the JCP booking office sent her to the NWA Central States territory due to their disapproval of her marriage to fellow wrestler Michael "Sam Houston" Smith.

Universal Wrestling Federation (1987)
In 1987, Roberts left JCP and joined the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma-based Universal Wrestling Federation (UWF) alongside her husband. Upon leaving the UWF, she began appearing on the independent circuit with Houston.

Return to JCP (1988)
In 1988, Roberts returned to Jim Crockett Promotions, managing Larry Zbyszko during his feud with Barry Windham over the NWA Western States Heritage Championship. Her tenure was short lived as her husband was then working for the rival World Wrestling Federation (WWF) in what was regarded as a conflict of interest.

World Wrestling Federation (1988)
Roberts heard about the WWF restarting their women's division and trained with Nelson Royal to improve her ring-skills alongside her sister-in-law Robin Smith. Both tried out with the WWF, but Smith was chosen over Roberts.

Independent circuit (2005, 2007-present)
At the inaugural WrestleReunion event on January 29, 2005 in Tampa, Florida, Roberts accompanied Jeff Jarrett to ringside for his successful defense of the NWA World Heavyweight Championship in a bout with Tully Blanchard. She went on to manage a number of wrestlers on the independent circuit throughout the late 2000s (decade). In 2016, Baby Doll appeared for Big Time Wrestling in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and Morganton, North Carolina, in "Battle of the Sexes" matches vs. Jim Cornette.

Personal life
While at high school, Roberts set several records for the shot put.

Roberts married fellow wrestler Michael "Sam Houston" Smith on July 30, 1986 in Lubbock, Texas. She gave birth to two daughters; Mikka Tyler Smith, in 1991, and Mikala Joy Smith, in 1992. Roberts retired from professional wrestling upon the birth of her second daughter, opting to devote her time to her children. She and Smith separated in 1991, briefly reconciled in 1992 and ultimately were divorced on February 17, 1995.

After retiring from professional wrestling, Roberts worked in a number of fields, including baggage handling, cable installation, the manufacture of apparel for wrestlers and 13 years at Wal-Mart.

Nickla married Chad Byrd on July 4, 2017; they reside in Caldwell County, North Carolina.

Championships and accomplishments

 * National Wrestling Alliance
 * NWA Legends Hall of Heroes (2016)
 * Windy City Pro Wrestling
 * WCPW Ladies Championship (1 time)

title: Baby Doll (wrestler)


text:
Battle of Bunclody

The battle of Bunclody or Newtownbarry as it was then called, was a battle in the Irish Rebellion of 1798, which took place on 1 June 1798 when a force of some 5,000 rebels led by Catholic priest Fr. Mogue Kearns attacked the garrison at Bunclody.

The garrison was forewarned of the approaching rebels and had prepared defensive outposts facing the rebel line of advance. The rebel army occupied high ground to the west and stationed an artillery piece, captured in their victory over the military at the battle of Three Rocks, facing the approaches to town. As the bulk of the rebel army formed for the attack, their gunners opened an accurate fire on the exposed lines of soldiers who retreated into the cover of the town.

Seizing the moment, the rebels quickly moved in, forcing the garrison to flee across the bridge into County Carlow but crucially, failed to occupy this approach to the town. The rebels now had an almost bloodless victory and numbers of them began to celebrate, roaming the town in search of plunder and enemies. As rebel discipline began to waver, trapped units of yeomen, some of whom had barricaded themselves into their own houses, opened fire on the unsuspecting rebels milling in the streets outside.

Meanwhile, the garrison had paused in their retreat and upon hearing the sound of gunfire from the town, turned about and launched a surprise attack back across the bridge, which caught the rebels, distracted by the unexpected pockets of resistance, completely by surprise. In the rout that followed 400 of the rebels were killed and their army scattered for the loss of just one killed and one wounded according to official report.

title: Battle of Bunclody


text:
Talk:Gerard Salton Award

I must weep red-eyed daily because all the honorees and SIGIR in contrast to SIGWEB are still red-linked in Wikipedia. The late SMART director and dictator Gerard Salton should self-defeat Gerald Salton here and now.

The article information retrieval (IR) looks like The Waste Land disillusioned with the Holy Grail after all. Where are IR professionals? What has become of them? Are they too busy or too lazy to be informed of the state of affairs? Do they feel like being frustrated or castrated by vandalism or the like?

What if they should not be determined to defend the wide IR territory but their own narrow paradigms or academic partisanship such as automatic and statistic indexing and searching, self-defeatingly raging something like a religious war against the other IR paradigms such as hypertext.

In 1970, IBM was running INTIME (INteractive Textual Information Management Experiment) to examine the feasibility of integrating online text editing, storage, retrieval, and typesetting functions. The project leader Charles Goldfarb later known as the father of SGML, hence the grandfather of HTML, claims that the GML prior to SGML emerged as a result. He further claims:

 * "Unlike ... other pioneers in this area, my chief motivation was information retrieval, not typesetting. (Remember, I was trying to automate a law office.)" -- Charles Goldfarb (1997) SGML: The Reason Why and the First Published Hint, JASIS, v.48, n.7.

In 1980, Berners-Lee designed the ENQUIRE hypertext system for personal use. Refer to the phrase "storage and retrieval" in the ENQUIRE documentation.

In 1990, he initiated the WWW HyperText Project at the CERN Documentation Center, allegedly mainly based on ENQUIRE. This project is strikingly analogous to IBM's INTIME, whose influence is thought unlikely though likely Goldfarb may suggest it is.

What looks quite strange here, as compared with Goldfarb, is that he later seemed to avoid mentioning information retrieval in relation to the Web development. Nonetheless, the utilitarian user-centered design of the Web should be credited as the greatest IR achievement and the greatest happiness that the world population has seldom enjoyed. Why then couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't all IR community take pride?

But it sounds like a taboo! Therefore, keep silent to be blessed in one way even if cursed in another. Or, keep eloquent to be blessed anyway.

In 1997, when Charles Goldfarb hinted in ASIST as above, Tefko Saracevic eloquently delivered the ACM SIGIR Gerard Salton Award acceptance address, "Users lost (summary): reflections on the past, future, and limits of information science." He said, "Whose relevance? Users!"

As a matter of fact as mentioned briefly as above, there has been user-centrism one way or another such as INTIME in 1970, ENQUIRE in 1980, WWW in 1990, and so forth. Why was Saracevic so eloquent then?

 * "I am afraid that the greatest danger that information science faces is losing the sight of users. [...] But, I am also convinced that the greatest pay-off for information science will come if and when it successfully integrates systems and users research. Society needs such a science."

I do not know why SIGIR and SIGWEB should be so isolated from each other. The American computer marketers may well be suspected of conspiracy for such isolation, not to mention the anomalous split of knowledge between LIS and CIS (computer and information science). Information science may be destined to begin with the library and end with the computer.

All this anomalous state of knowledge makes me weep daily more and more bitterly. --KYPark 16:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gerard Salton Award


text:
Talk:List of companies listed on the Singapore Exchange

List dates
Where do all the list dates for the companies come from? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC) the article need to be updated as we are now in 2015. it would also be much more helpful if there is a division between foreign companies and singapore companies. S- chips should also be highlighted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.160.0.5 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Mr Big (British band)

Untitled
Possible copyvio from http://home.no.net/mott/mrbigbio.html Djbrianuk 16:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mr Big (British band)


text:
Talk:Richard H. Brodhead

Untitled
the most recent edit contains material close to slander on Brodhead. I am adding a NPOV tag and giving the author 24 hours to edit his own material, along with sources. if he does not, I will be removing it and changing it to:

''At Duke University, Brodhead is currently criticized by some for acting against workers' rights. These issues mainly revolve around Angelica Corporation, to whom the University's Health System outsourced its laundry, and the implementation of a "living wage" for university employees.'' Bubbachuck 16:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

edited last paragraph for NPOV. Prev author gave no sources for heavily biased statements. Bubbachuck 01:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PSM link
In deciding to remove the link to http://www.palestineconference.com from the main text, I used the analogy of a man who makes a controversial decision that is tangentially related to why he is famous. should that decision have a link to its parenting organization? to me, no, it would seem too much like an advertisement. IF the link was to an Wikipedia article such as Palestine Conference, which is NPOV, THEN i would say, yes the link has merit. as to an off-Wikipedia site, i'd say we'd be treading on dangerous waters to use Brodhead's biography as a launching site for a controversial subject. i'd appreciate thoughts on this matter. -- Bubbachuck 04:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If we are mentioning the controversy caused by the PSM conference, we should link to the original, I think. Brodhead's handling of the conference was a hot topic on campus (and remains so, in certain circles), so the link to the conference webpage should remain.  Perhaps we can also link to a page that opposed the conference, to point out why the topic was controversial.  Thoughts?  -- Termite47384

 * Termite47384 i took the liberty of putting ur reply into the "PSM link" heading. For your reference, you should reply directly in this heading....it makes for easier organization for longer discussions.  As for the topic at hand, PSM was a hot issue but that does not mean that a link to the conference's homepage is justified.  since the topic is itself controversial, by linking it from a NPOV article it would serve to tilt the neutrality of the article.  as for TWO links, one for each side in order to balance out the neutrality, that changes the scope and purpose of brodhead's biography.  it would also burden the reader of reading two foreign webpages.  again, i am in favor of a PSM article created.  it does not have to be very long, just point out both viewpoints.  then a link from Brodhead's article sholuld be created. -- Bubbachuck 04:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Coach K's potential leaving--relevant?
A summary of the dispute: There has long been a paragraph in this article that mentions that on the first day of Brodhead's presidency at Duke, Coach K threatened to leave. NatusRoma thinks that it is very important that this fact not be in the article. I will leave it to him or her to describe why this is so important. As of the last edit, the paragraph in question read:

 * Brodhead suffered difficult first day as university president. That day, Duke's star basketball coach, Mike Krzyzewski announced that the Los Angeles Lakers had offered him $40 million to become their new coach. Brodhead averted crisis when Krzyzewski decided to stay at Duke.

I believe it should be in the article. It is a verifiable fact that Coach K threatened to leave on Brodhead's first day. I believe that it is relevant to people who seek to understand Brodhead's tenure so far at Duke. NatusRoma has demanded that I prove by citing a reliable source that the story is important to understanding Brodhead's tenure. I hold that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. As I understand it, one does not need to show that a verifiable source has stated a fact's importance--only its accuracy. It's an editorial judgment (that is, what we editors do) to decide whether it's important.

My read of policy is common sense. Not a single one of the facts in this article has a source that says that it's important. Why is the fact that Brodhead was a member of Manuscript in the article? Can you show me a verifiable source that says that it's important? No. It's there so that a reader interested in Brodhead can learn it and make his or her own interpretive judgment.

If I were to write "Krzyzewki's threat to leave is important because it shows that Brodhead is under the thumb of the athletic department," or "Some people argue that Krzyzewki's threat to leave is important because it shows that Brodhead is under the thumb of the athletic department," I agree that I'd need a reliable source that backed me up. (I think I could find it, though, since I know I've read that somewhere in the voluminous coverage of the lacrosse scandal.) But that's not what's written here--instead we're putting in a verifiable fact that is relevant in the biography of the subject.

Having an edit war about this is dumb. Can we get some other opinions please? 71.77.12.236 01:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." I understand that the fact that Coach K threatened to leave is verifiable, but I am challenging the accuracy of the contention that the incident is "important to understanding Brodhead's tenure". Please find a reliable source. NatusRoma | Talk 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, yes, I can find a source that agrees with me. See, for example, Peter J. Boyer, "Big Men on Campus," The New Yorker, 4 Sept 2006); Jane Stancill, "Brodhead's presidency enjoys trial by ordeal," Raleigh News and Observer, 8 Apr 2006.  But this is really besides the point.  You are simply misunderstanding Verifiability.  The contention that the incident is important is not in the article and therefore needs not be sourced in the same way the fact is sourced.  My statement that the incident is "important to understanding Brodhead's tenure" is--absolutely--a matter of opinion.  It explains why I think the paragraph should be in the article.  As I wrote before, not a single sentence in the article cites a verifiable source to show that it is important, only that it is true.  Whether it's important is a matter of editorial discretion--which is what we editors do.
 * I posted my lengthy discussion why I thought the paragraph should be in the article and waited about a week before restoring the paragraph. In that time, not a single editor commented.  Having done what you (unreasonably) asked, I am now restoring the paragraph.  May I suggest that you, as a sign of good faith, not revert until another editor comments?  Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make your point. 71.77.12.236 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

BLP Dispute
The article needs to be cleaned up per WP:BLP. This article is not a venue to make attacks against the subject, and especially not a venue to bring personal grudges (See WP:BATTLE). Please remember, per BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia" --Ronz 00:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * There are very serious violations of the biography of living persons policy in this article, which I've tried to remove. Please read the policy carefully before inserting negative information - all such information must be clearly and reliably sourced. Controversy over Brodhead's actions in the lacrosse case may be better dealt with in the main article on the controversy. Given the severity and scope of the problems with editors of this article, further edits that introduce unsourced or poorly sourced negative information, particularly by repeat offenders, may result in the article being protected or editors being blocked. If in doubt, discuss the proposed source or edit here on the talk page before inserting it. MastCell Talk 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Nevertheless, all the criticisms of Brodhead have been removed-- and there are numerous good citations available in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case article of criticisms that would be relevant to the article. The only remaining information seems to be the defenses against the (now unlisted) criticisms. For an NPOV article, at least some quick reference to the forced resignation of Mike Pressler and other aspects of the handling of the case should be mentioned. Here are a couple potential sources (from the main scandal article) that appear to put Brodhead's handling of the situation in context.

 * http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/06/22/duke0626/index.html

 * http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2398409

 * http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/573369.html

 * Anyway, since it's tagged I'd like to hear what people think of these proposed changes. It should leave the article much improved without passing judgement on Brodhead, and without letting the lacrosse case take the bio over.

 * Wellspring 23:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Duke lacrosse scandal has it's own page. What's written here about it should be summarized from the main article, making sure that BLP isn't violated in the process. --Ronz 01:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes. The point is that what's currently here doesn't really summarize Brodhead's role as related in the article or supported by the references. Hence the need for the update. The stuff I'm looking to add are the criticisms already voiced, verifiable from the sources above and maintaining NPOV. The criticism is noteworthy and, properly sourced and neutrally stated, should be included.
 * Wellspring 02:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The sources you've listed are certainly reliable by Wikipedia's criteria... I suppose the only other issue is making sure that criticism is presented fairly. Certainly WP:BLP states that negative information, if well-sourced and neutrally presented, is fair game for inclusion. The problem is only with poorly sourced negative information, or if a negative tone starts to overwhelm the article out of proportion to its representation in good sources. MastCell Talk 03:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * OK Finally added the changes. MastCell, could you review them to make sure I conformed to BLP?

 * Wellspring 03:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Richard H. Brodhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070526075138/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/04/11/national/a113721D83.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/04/11/national/a113721D83.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Richard H. Brodhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080608190716/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/1565/story/720509.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/1565/story/720509.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Richard H. Brodhead. 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/20070630095746/http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/523377.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/523377.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726220742/http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/12/60_minutes.html to http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/12/60_minutes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207155742/http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/03/brodheadlacrosse.html to http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/03/brodheadlacrosse.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207155742/http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/03/brodheadlacrosse.html to http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/03/brodheadlacrosse.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2007%2F04%2F11%2Fnational%2Fa113721D83.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Richard H. Brodhead


text:
User:RE*AC*TOR

RE*AC*TOR has been...

-- Administrator for HyperRust Never Sleeps

-- Administrator for The Rust List

...among other things.

title: User:RE*AC*TOR