Talk:Daniel Greenberg

Erroneous recreation of this article

In recreating this article, Nfitz makes the following false assertions:

• "Meets WP:ACADEMIC": no it doesn't. It meets none of the criteria for this guideline, as it does not even assert any of the following (let alone substantiate it from RS):

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.
9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

• "Don't blank pages … You violate WP:BLANK." A WP:REDIRECT is not blanking.
• "Take to … AfD." A redirect does not require an AfD.
• "Take to Talk" Just did so.

Further I would point out that this article has no sourced content, so fails WP:V. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that Nfitz is reverting without addressing these points. That a redirect does not require an AfD is well-settled on WT:AFD, e.g.:

No, AFD is not the right place to discuss mergers and redirects. Those are ordinary editing decisions to be worked out by the editors of the page using the normal discussion processes. Merging content, turning a page into a redirect and reversing those acts do nothing to affect the pagehistory and can be reversed by any editor without the need to resort to special admin tools. AFD is limited to discussions about deletion because that act does affect pagehistory and requires admin-only tools. If the normal discussion is breaking down, there are other, normal dispute resolution processes to escalate to. Dumping everything into AFD would be a very bad idea. Rossami (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

— WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 44#Is AfD an inappropriate place to discuss mergers and/or redirects?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should simply discuss this without all the Wikilawyering. Perhaps WP:ACADEMIC is a bit of a stretch ... but surely WP:AUTHOR is easily met, meeting all three of "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. ". Nfitz (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should have gotten your policy straight first before reverting repeatedly on the basis of inapplicable policy. The article does not yet meet WP:AUTHOR, as it does not yet meet any of the criteria but simply states that Greenberg "has published several books and presented numerous lectures on the Sudbury model." Nor does it demonstrate meeting WP:GNG as the only sourced information in the article is "Daniel A. Greenberg (born c. 1934) is a founding member of the Sudbury Valley School in Framingham, Massachusetts.[1] Before founding the school in 1968, he was a physics professor at Columbia University.[2][3]" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Article still needs work. Was badly written. I've sourced what was there, cleaned up, removed fluff. It needs more referenes to support notability, but that requires a library visit into the literature of alternative education. But it's a significant advance after 4 years. I'm sure in 4 more we'll have it cleaned up. Nfitz (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Four years to get two whole sentences sourced. You will pardon me if I don't hold my breath. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and give the fella a chance to flesh out the article. I don't want to see more sentences about whether the research has been done sufficiently than showing the results of that research. Nfitz's time is better spent working on the article then on defending its existence. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, WP:AGF was not about faith in miracles. With only two sourced sentences after four years, assuming a landslide of material would simply have no basis in the historic record. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher and writer

Apparently he's written a lot of books about democratic education as practiced in Sudbury schools.

The issue should not be whether there's room for the material in Wikipedia, but whether it's more convenient for readers to have the author's life work crammed into the main Sudbury Valley School article, or to use WP:SUMMARY style. Personally, I find the main article flows better with just a brief mention of him. But I wouldn't mind a merge provided that all the information is inserted.

The point is to avoid censorship, or the appearance of it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The point was never about censorship, but whether there is sufficient reliably sourced material (i.e. "significant coverage") to form a non-vestigial article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"physics professor at Columbia University"

The phrase "physics professor at Columbia University" appears to be WP:SYNTH. The English source (apparently -- it's behind a paywall) states that he was at Columbia, the German that he was a physics professor -- but neither that he was the two at the same time. It is perfectly conceivable that he could have been at more than one university during his academic career. We really need a single source for this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Holzman's Schools for Growth says (on page 94)

Daniel Greenberg (1987), a former Columbia University physics professor who was one of its founders and its chief "philosophical writer," described Sudbury Valley as a "perpetual recess" (p. 24)

Gabbe (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"philosophical writer"

The fact that Holzman places quotation marks around "philosophical writer" is a clear indication that she is not accepting attribution of the phrase -- whether she is quoting somebody else, using them in scare quotes or whatever. Unless the phrase can be explicitly attributed to somebody other than Holzman, I would suggest that it needs to be removed due to this implicit disavowal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Vide supra. Gabbe (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect Holzman got it from Gray and Chanoff 1986. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Further erroneous restoration

I would note that Nfitz's prefered version:

• Violates WP:SYNTH (see #"physics professor at Columbia University")
• Violates WP:NONENG which states that non-English sources are only "acceptable where an English equivalent is not available." As Gabbe pointed out, Holzman covers this (in English, without synthesis, and not behind a paywall).
• Fails to provide "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (per WP:GNG).
• Fails to demonstrate that Greenberg meets any criteria under WP:PROF (listed above).

As an WP:AFD is not required for a WP:REDIRECT, and as these congenital flaws had not been remedied since the article was recreated, I restored the redirect to the topic that is Greenberg's sole claim to noteworthiness (where he's included in a list of "staff"). If Nfitz considers any of the (very brief) material here to be noteworthy there (personally, I don't), he can always add it there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Fair comments ... now that objections have been raised, then there is opportunity to fix! Article is over 4 years old; it's obviously not going to be fixed overnight. And I'm certainly not going to pop in here every week to check what the latest objection is ... that would be obsessive of me. Clearly though he meets the The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources criteria of WP:PROF of interational reknown ... though if you keep removing all the references in the article before you start trying to wipe it, it would be evident. You argue that WP:AFD is not required for a WP:REDIRECT, yet at the same time WP:RFD notes that Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Clearly when one is trying to remove an article through the use of an redirect, and there is objection, then one must go the AFD process. As a redirect is a frequent outcome of the AfD process, then I think it's the only viable solution to this impass. Nfitz (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"now that objections have been raised"?

"now that objections have been raised"?

These "objections" were "raised" months ago!

1. WP:PROF/WP:ACADEMIC was raised at 12:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
2. WP:GNG was raised at 05:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
3. WP:SYNTH was raised at 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC).
4. WP:NONENG was raised in this edit on or around 1 September.
5. 2 & 3 were 'fixed' by myself on or around 3 September. You BROKE them again on or around 22 October.

Further:

1. WP:REDIRECTing is not WP:BLANKing. Your accusation is both false and in violation of WP:AGF.
2. {{notability}} clearly envisions a WP:MERGE as a possible outcome of failure to establish notability. I admittedly merged-as-bare-redirect to Sudbury school (I did not think that the slight details this article has on Greenberg to add much to the bare mention of his name there, and not to be particularly relevant there), but to avoid making a mountain out of a molehill, I will include (the policy-compliant-sources version) of this snippet in that article when I restore the redirect.
3. Four years and still can't meet WP:Notability = congenitally malformed article. 2 months of having your nose repeatedly rubbed in this fact and no improvement whatsoever (in fact some back-sliding, see #5 above) = no reason to hold off redirect/merge.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to your later additions:

1. It is not merely "I" who am "argu[ing] that WP:AFD is not required for a WP:REDIRECT" -- THIS IS THE CONSENSUS INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY.
2. WP:RFD does not support your actions. It is merely stating that an RfD is not needed to turn a redirect into an article -- not that the resultant article is not subject to WP:Notability, or that recreating, without modification, an article that was merged/redirected/deleted for lack of notability is in any way sanctioned by WP:RFD.
3. No it is not 'clear' that "when one is trying to remove an article through the use of an redirect, and there is objection, then one must go the AFD process." AfDs are for when administrator-action (i.e. a deletion) is needed. Merges and redirects do not require administrator-action. AfDs seeking remedies that do not require administrator-action are routinely speedy-closed. If you want wider scrutiny, then the appropriate fora would appear to be either WP:Proposed mergers or a WP:RFC.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can we take these issues one at a time. First off ...

"now that objections have been raised"?

"now that objections have been raised"?

These "objections" were "raised" months ago!

what's with the triple repetition here? I'm unsure of what this point is. Nfitz (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• It was a single repetition of the question, indicating incredulity at your dishonesty in suggesting that these were new issues. I note that you restrict yourself solely to addressing the rhetoric, and avoid discussing the substance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • So your first point is that you violated both WP:FAITH and WP:NPA? I think we are done here. Nfitz (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• No! My "first point" is that it is a cold hard fact (as established by my 5 numbered points above) that your characterisation that "now that objections have been raised" was a gross misrepresentation of the state of the discussion. Facts are neither "assumptions" (of bad faith) nor (personal) attacks. If you don't like the facts, then that's not my problem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed references

Instead of debating old history, let's just fix the article. I've gone through and added references that hopefully avoid the objections previously raised. Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So much for "tak[ing] these issues one at a time" -- you didn't "take" a single issue. Your "added references" (after eliminating claims not contained in them) simply amount to using three references for material contained in my original one ({{refspam}}?), one of them not third-party (Gray is a trustee of the school), and to the statement "More than three dozen Sudbury-type schools having since opened around the world" -- which is more relevant to Sudbury school than here. Any additional evidence of notability here? I think not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm simply trying to link Greenberg, to the creation of the model, to the extent of the model. Was he only linked to a single school, rather than a model of education, I'd agree that he isn't notable; I'm simply trying to provide references to support that. I'm not really as familiar with Gray's background as you are - and am not that familiar with that particular school ... and perhaps not the best reference; but it is the source of the "principal philosopher" question you've raised in the past, as best as I can make out, and it's in a major, peer-reviewed journal as far as I can tell; so it avoids the claims of bias, and self-publishing, etc. Perhaps we can simply try and constructively edit, rather than combing through every past comment? Nfitz (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• "…rather than combing through every past comment"? The problem is that you have been ignoring ALL the previous conversations -- which makes discussing things with you rather a waste of time. No, a single mention as "principal philosopher" by another SVS insider does not meet "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (WP:PROF) or "an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" (WP:AUTHOR). It does not come even close. This would require numerous, voluminous and/or prominent (and almost certainly at least two out of those three) coverage from outside the Sudbury schools. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Previously you said Unless the phrase can be explicitly attributed to somebody other than Holzman, I would suggest that it needs to be removed due to this implicit disavowal. - when provided with an earlier, peer-reviewed, reference that appears to be the source of that, you raise other objections ... Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and I later relented and proposed this articulation as acceptable (per WP:ASF). That issue is therefore moot. The issue that your previous comment raised was notability, which I addressed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough - I'm not entirely clear at what is moot and not ... I thought that much of this discussion is moot, and then one day the article vanished again! Nfitz (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• No Nfitz, no reasonable editor would consider the issue of notability to be moot as (i) I have neither by word nor by action given any indication whatsoever as acquiescing on this issue and (ii) the article's piteously meagre contents do not meet WP:GNG (which requires "significant coverage") nor makes any statement that could be seen as meeting WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Once again, I ask you to stop with the personal attacks. By saying "no reasonable editor" you imply that I am not a reasonable editor. Such statements are not necessary. You do not have to attack and demean other editors to demonstrate your point; in fact, I'd say resorting to personal attacks only demonstrates that you do not have a case. Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nfitz: I gave a clear & factual basis why your interpretation could not be considered "reasonable". Given that you made this interpretation an issue, you can hardly consider yourself hard-done-by if I analyse that interpretation and if the conclusion of that analysis is unflattering. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways one can phrase an arguement. You choose to make personal attacks and be incivil. As such your opinions have no validity and discussion must be reserved for editors who can be civil. Nfitz (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Nfitz, that argument (assuming that I accept its validity) leaves you out of the discussion. However, given an ongoing 'he says, she says' argument on who is being incivil serves no purpose (other than to avoid sticky points of fact or logic), I will rephrase slightly:

I don't even know what you mean here. That diff you posted to was perfectly civil; all I did was revert the edit, note the notability, and ask that that the page not be left blank. I'm not sure where you seeing incivility in that. Nfitz (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to consider the issue of notability to be moot as (i) I have neither by word nor by action given any indication whatsoever as acquiescing on this issue and (ii) the article's piteously meagre contents do not meet WP:GNG (which requires "significant coverage") nor makes any statement that could be seen as meeting WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you try that again in English - I have no idea what your point is here; please try and be precise. Nfitz (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It was written "in English" (and it is uncivil of you to suggest otherwise, either seriously or sarcastically). It is not my problem if you cannot understand English (and I would note that you expressed no difficulty with almost exactly the same wording a few comments ago). I have already spent far more time on responding to you than the contents of your comments justifies. I do not intend to spend any further time on it than I can avoid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if it was uncivil, I was merely trying to express that I didn't understand your point, or even one or two of the words that you used to be honest ... so I was simply asking you to rephrase it another manner. Nfitz (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)