Talk:Sudbury school

Untitled

Any problems with this model of school? - AmishThrasher 14:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Not as widespread as it should be. ;) Michael%Sappir 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

External links and See also

I have removed the recently added links to Katuah Sudbury School's website. There are quite a few Sudbury schools with websites not linked to at the bottom of this article. I'm frankly unsure even SVS's website should be linked to here. Maybe the external links area for this article should only contain links to external articles about the model. Meanwhile, it would at least make sense not to add links to just any other school's website (or list of Sudbury schools) unless there is some good reason for that. If there is such a reason for the inclusion of the Katuah links then by all means, tell me off. Meanwhile, a general idea for this section should be discussed. Michael Sappir • (Talk) 19:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we do not need to have lists to other schools' websites at this article, considering the aforementioned list. If nothing else, it would just unnecessarily lengthen the article. I'm neutral about the inclusion of the Sudbury Valley School's web site, except that it serves as a reference point. Aaronwinborn 13:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I've added a See also section, with the following links:

• Sudbury Valley School
• List of Sudbury Schools
• Democratic school
• Free school

I do not think this is an absolutely necessary addition, but I put it out there so that the possibility will be considered and discussed. At any rate, if an external link to the SVS website is here, we should probably also include an internal link to the article about SVS. Michael Sappir • (Talk) 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I did a quick search on google, and didn't find any articles about the model that weren't specifically hosted on a Subury school's web site. So for now, considering there's now an internal link to Sudbury Valley School, I'll remove the external link to that school. It makes more sense to add links to articles discussing the model. I just don't know of any good, neutral links off-hand. Of course, the best source may be hosted on a sudbury school's site; I just don't want to arbitrarily pick one or two over any others. Probably the best for now would be something right off of sudval.org's website, since they are at least the original sudbury school. -- Aaronwinborn 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Article name

My main confusion over this page is why it is under "sudbury school" and not directly linked to under "sudbury model" where it seems, it would belong. One vote to move it over. Any disagreement? ZuG 14:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree, although I know there are some prominent voices in Sudbury schools in the States against considering anything to constitute the "Sudbury model". I personally believe there is a very real set of concepts that constitute the Sudbury model, and I agree the article should be moved. I'm just not strongly opposed to the way things are right now. Michael Sappir • (Talk) 13:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Classes? What classes?

There's a lot of talk in this article about "classes."

I visited our local Sudbury school, and there are hardly any "classes" at all- just kids doing their thing. Maybe they have 1 or 2 of what we would think of as "classes" at all. But for the most part, it's like when you take a "class" by ... ...taking up a hobby, or something like that.

I'd like to know if my local Sudbury school is an exception or not. And I'd like to see some support for the idea that there are Classes at Sudbury schools.

So far, I have not seen it.

LionKimbro 21:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My experience with the schools is that when you have several students interested in studying a similar thing at the same time, then it sometimes becomes efficient to have a class for the subject. This is probably more common in larger Sudbury schools than in smaller ones, where a "class" might resemble tutoring when it occurs. Of course, each school is unique, and some may have a formal process for creating a "class", while others may disdain anything resembling a traditional class. - Aaronwinborn 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Broadly and generally speaking, classes really aren't a very central thing in Sudbury schools, but they do exist to some extent. In my experience it does depend on size but even more on the cultural environment of the school. Basically, when the students get the feeling - for whatever reason - that classes are a good way to learn things, you get more classes. Size matters because you usually only call it a class if there are a few people involved, but classes are not purely a function of size. False labeling can be misleading as LionKimbro suggests; I have met people in democratic education (but not from the Sudbury movement) who like to label as "class" everything kids do, in order to make kids realize that whatever they do is important and meaningful. This practice seems to me rather manipulative and I believe I am not alone in the Sudbury movement in feeling so (because I have never heard of a Sudbury school doing such a thing). Michael Sappir • (Talk) 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Vertical Curriculum

Clearly a Sudbury school is not the same as a school running under a vertical curriculum, but there can be overlaps. A vertical curriculum school being a school where there are only classes, but what is taught in them is dependent on what the classes are wishing to study. Not all students progress at the same rate, and so while mainstreamed students will still follow a 'normal' curriculum, slower or faster students will work with classes of equivalent experience. Campbelltown Performing Arts High School in NSW, Australia became such a school in 1995. There are others in Australia. I understand that Campbelltown no longer follows such a path. DDB (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Formerly 'What is this, a promotional brochure?' This whole thing reads like it's promoting Sudbury schooling, not like an encyclopedic article. Is there no criticism of the model, no research into its effectiveness, nothing? Just "holy shit this is AWESOME"?--61.224.44.146 (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll betcha an 80% college graduation rate is well below that of most private high schools. 24.6.254.221 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the article lies in the promotional area, much as Sahaja Yoga. While such articles are benign, it would be good to make them more encyclopedic. The concept has historical antecedants. But, will the promoters relax enough to allow the encyclopedists to write about it?

I noted that this is a private school, which was not at all clear from the article Wowest (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article read like a brochure for a summer camp. I just radically rewrote it, trimming it way down, and adding a few sources. It's now just a factual overview, not advocacy. I removed the {{POV}} tag. No doubt I went too far. I invite folks to add back information that tells what distinguishes Sudbury schools. The article could use more than that, too: information about schools' history, alumni, theory, and criticism. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm obviously a proponent of Sudbury schools, I definitely agree the article needed some NPOVing work done on it. Still, I find the new version poor in terms of information it provides. I'm editing it now, going to try and expand it, including reintegration of passages that were removed; I hope I can keep the tone more neutral than it used to be. -Michael Sappir • (Talk) 18:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've done my initial edit, to be continued. By the way, about criticism, I'm looking into finding some, but haven't seen much serious, reasoned criticism of the Sudbury concept in the net or elsewhere. The same sadly goes for research - there is a sore lack of serious research about democratic schooling. I would be very glad to hear of any research centered on Sudbury schools. -Michael Sappir • (Talk) 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael, thanks for taking another edit. Interesting about the lack of criticism and research. I'll keep massaging the article myself. Hopefully after another few iterations of different folks working on it, it'll be solid, factual, well-sourced encyclopedic writing, and as well as really interesting to read! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to let opponents of Sudbury schools write criticism. If they can find anything to be criticized, if at all, compared with most existing schools. We should concentrate in those many really non-solid, non-factual, bad-sourced, non-encyclopedic worse written articles than this one -- and still not trimmed. There is research, but you deleted it. See also, Legacy of Trust: Life After the Sudbury Valley School Experience, Daniel Greenberg and Mimsy Sadofsky, and Reflections of 'SVS Kids,' From Legacy of Trust. Cheers, 94.230.83.57 (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Which pages do you have in mind to see improved or trimmed? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of them, still currently I'd rather focus on improving this page, not trimming, amputating, and/or truncating it. Actually, one of Sudbury model schools' advantages is being like summer camps, yet students are learning all the time there, the same as having fun and enjoying their stay. So, if you thought the article read like a brochure for a summer camp, maybe it's because it just reflected correctly these schools' atmosphere. (: 94.230.83.57 (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what school you've visited and for how long, but no Sudbury school I've ever attended or visited had a "summer camp" atmosphere about it. Maybe here and there, for a limited time in a limited space, but it's hardly a generalization I'd choose for the movement.

At any rate, Wikipedia has its own style and atmosphere to maintain, regardless of topic, and sometimes an article can't be edited for style before it's been given a good chopping up... -Michael Sappir • (Talk) 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's not a "summer camp atmosphere", but a "country-club atmosphere" or an "all-day recess."

"....One of the most striking aspects of the school is the way children play here. Visitors are amazed to see that the school permits the children to play all day, week in week out, starting in the Fall through the Winter and into the Spring, year after year. They wonder at the "country-club atmosphere," or at the "all-day recess." But that is not what is really striking about the play at SVS. What is essentially unique is the utter seriousness, the concentration, even the passion with which the children pursue their play...."

[excerpted from, "What Children Don't Learn at SVS," by Hanna Greenberg, The Sudbury Valley School Experience].

This main feature, the atmosphere in these schools, together with their other main features should be included in their description in this page, notwithstanding the chopping or the enlarging of the article. 94.230.83.57 (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, agreed, I'm doing some more editing now and will try to add this somehow. -Michael Sappir • (Talk) 14:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In "our educational system... democracy is for the privileged... The idea of individual rights is absent from schools... the rights of people in schools ... are simply not respected, [only] lip service paid to [individual rights]." Lack of sources, POV and writing quality all raise concerns.--Thomas B♘talk 10:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-expansion

(Continued from Tone above) Okay, I think there's nothing more to be reintegrated from the old article... A lot of it really is basically philosophical propaganda. Some things I think still need more writing on:

• Alumni (the studies SVS has conducted should be mentioned, as well as the apparent lack of other research - which may need double-checking)
• The Sudbury movement (how it developed and grew and its current state of unofficial camaraderie)
• Legality (in Germany the government is aware of Sudbury schooling and in most federal states actively stops these schools from being founded, for example)
• Literature (it should at least be mentioned; SVS has generated a remarkable amount of literature about this school form)
• Learning (this part needs expansion)

I'm going to try to write some of this but I'm not sure I'll get it all done, nor that I'll remember exactly what I thought needs adding - hence the list, for future reference and for anyone looking to expand the article who doesn't know where to start. -Michael Sappir • (Talk) 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

I see you are doing a good job in revamping the article but, don't you think that besides the topics you enumerated above, a bit on "discipline" and "responsibility" should also be reintegrated? Please don't think I'm so happy just sitting there and watching you do the work. I would do it myself, but your English is much better than mine so I just might suggest, "criticize" and maybe cheer hurray! :) Regarding SVS' remarkable amount of literature it has generated about the school, I think it's a pity to lose it. -- 94.230.83.57 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The above topics sound great to me! Literature about Sudbury schools is especially good: the article should refer to that so readers will know where to get more detail. Issues of legality are definitely of interest. Regarding discipline and responsibility: the section in the old version was very soapboxy, appearing to use "they claim" as an occasion to advocate the superiority of the Sudbury model. The main facts, though, should be in the article, especially if they've been discussed in secondary sources. Also, is there a name for the "internal discipline" approach to law & order, etc. that is being advocated? Is it part of a broader movement in education or ethical/political thought generally? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just the way it's written at this time, but not all sections appear to be specific to Sudbury school - several sections from this article appear at this time to be more appropriate for the more generic articles about Democratic education and Democratic schools, and not directly specific to Sudbury school. If the content is specific to Sudbury school, then can the wording be cleaned up to clarify that fact? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of third party sources

This article does not appear to cite a single source that is not either a Sudbury school, or a founder of one of the schools. This lack of third party sourcing means that (i) it is questionable whether the article presents a WP:NPOV of the schools (as it presents only the views of the schools themselves) & (ii) whether they meet WP:ORG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is also the reason that I'm reverting the additions (based on yet more Sudbury school-published sources) of the anon-editor. This article really needs some substantial third party sourcing before any more Sudbury school-published material is added. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I managed to find one third party academic source (van Duyke) that involves field observation. Tsiaojian lee (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Well rounded information about Sudbury schools

Dear Hrafn. It looks like you are applying yourself to this article. What you are doing is truncating it. After you did it, it became worse than it was before. Instead of improving the article, the information it now conveys is distorted because it is lacking the main description of the features that characterize this model of education schools'. Third-party publications are very seldom if at all in this case, an maybe it was not as perfectly written as desirable but, at least it provided the minimum information needed to understand what these schools are, and what they are doing. I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia's most articles about schools. You will notice they are not better edited nor better based on third-party publications than this is. I think this way you are definitely doing a disservice to Wikipedia and its readers. Cheers, 94.230.83.239 (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear anon-editor. Let me quote some policies for you:

• WP:PROVEIT: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
• WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: ... the article is not based primarily on such sources." (my emphasis)
• {{primarysources}}: "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources."

This article appears to be solely referenced to (primarily self-published) material from the topic and/or sources closely associated with it. This is not acceptable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Democratic education vs. Sudbury model?

I have been updating the democratic education and democratic school pages and have just now found these Sudbury-oriented pages. After reading though, however, I can't see what exactly differentiates the Sudbury school model from the broader democratic education/school movement.

Can this distinction be clarified/defined?

If it can, it should be the most prominent element of this page. If Sudbury school is ostensibly defining a sub-branch of democratic education (not founding it; see: Summerhill School), it should demonstrate clearly in what ways it is different.

If it cannot be distinguished substantively from democratic education/schooling, I move to migrate non-redundant information on this page to the democratic education and democratic school pages and note here the fact that certain schools were simply inspired/modeled by the Sudbury Valley School and therefore incorporate the word into their names. Maguire09 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly be in favour of merging this article (which is primarily based upon self-published/primary/affiliated sources) into those articles, as appropriate. I would however suggest that democratic school be renamed 'List of democratic schools', as it's primarily a WP:Stand-alone list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've renamed democratic school 'List of democratic schools' and as long as there are no substantive objections, I'll begin migrating information from this page over to the democratic education page in the next few days. Thanks Hrafn for your sharp WP organizational precision and suggestions! It helps keep things streamlined around here! Maguire09 (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

See: 1. "Certain facets of the model separate it from other democratic schools and free schools, although there are evident similarities:" 2. "Certain nuances in the operation of Sudbury schools emerged during the years they have been in existence, five subtleties that are essential in defining them:" 94.230.80.140 (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the first link, there are schools that exist that do not consider themselves Sudbury Schools, were inspired by Summerhill, and include those attributes. Summerhil includes non-compulsory classes; Sudbury also has non-compulsory classes. Per the second link, all democratic schools I know of, given the legal bounds of the countries they are found in, respect individual rights, rule of law, universal suffrage, etc. I'm not sure those links actually demonstrate a substantive difference in philosophy. Maguire09 (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Sudbury schools are different. The starting point for all their thinking is the apparently revolutionary idea that a child is a person, worthy of full respect as a human being. These are simple words with devastatingly complex consequences, chief of which is that the child's agenda for its own life is as important as anyone else's agenda -- parents, family, friends, or even the community. In the school for the children, their inner needs have to be given priority in their education at every point. As a practical matter, this means that the children's activities at school have to be launched on their own initiative. There can be no externally imposed curriculum, no arbitrary requirements dictating what they should do with themselves. The schools have to be nurturing environments in which the children themselves schedule their time, choose what they wished to do.

Personal respect also has to be the foundation of the children's process of socialization. This led them directly to the concept of democracy as an institutional imperative. Democracy alone is built on the solid foundation of equal respect for all members of the community, and for their ideas and hopes. And so it became a cornerstone of their philosophy to give everyone at school, without exception, a full and equal voice in running the school.

And that is the heart of the matter: combining absolute respect for self with deep sense of community. Such are Sudbury schools.

Obviously legal bounds of the countries Sudbury schools are found in, are important. You cannot operate or even start a Sudbury school in Iran, for instance. The same as in other countries, depending on the degree of freedom existing in each of them. The same applies for democratic and also for free schools.

As for the facets of the model that separate it from other democratic schools and free schools, among others called "subtleties of a democratic school," I will enumerate the more conspicuous of them:

• Other schools offer or impose the learning of specific subjects on students, whereas in Sudbury schools the demand comes straightforwardly from the student.
• Other schools are dubiously democratic, inasmuch as usually they do not protect the individual rights of the members of the school.
• Other schools are not politically neutral. They have a hidden or a manifest political agenda and some of them impose this political agenda on the school members.
• In other schools decision making is at best autocratic or by consensus, whereas in Sudbury schools it is democratic.
• Official meetings of any group in other schools do not operate according to some set of explicit, formal procedures, whereas Sudbury schools do.
• Students and staff in other schools are not the authority on hiring and firing of staff, whereas in Sudbury schools they are.

94.230.80.140 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Your description of Sudbury Schools is precisely the same as democratic education generally. Your argument that certain democratic schools are not, in fact, democratic is debatable. If there are any listed mistakenly on the List of democratic schools feel free to purge them. As far as I know, schools inspired by Summerhill, Sudbury Valley, or any other democratic school are common only in their freedom of learning and democratic political structure. Other than those two elements, each constructs its own body of laws, rules, practices, etc. My contention is not that Sudbury schools are not exactly how you described them. They are and I agree with you. However, in order to declare something is a unique philosophy, distinct and separate from other philosophies--at least in Wikipedia--it must be verified by third-party neutral sources. I have never found a single book, article, study, or commentary that originates outside the Sudbury community of schools or writers describing or outlining a Sudbury model of education. If such sources exist, please add them. Until then, it seems to me that this article is accurate: some schools call themselves Sudbury schools because they were inspired by the Sudbury Valley School. They are, along with others, democratic schools. Maguire09 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Sudbury schools are different

Maybe in Wikipedia you need third-party neutral sources in order to verify everything, but I don't need third-party neutral sources in order to know that Sudbury schools are different.

"Certain nuances in the operation of the school emerged during the years we have been in existence that turn out to be very important in defining the school. A while ago someone gave me a book to read about an alternative school that appeared to him to be very similar to Sudbury Valley. I read the material I had been given, and my first reaction was one of horror , because I found the school described in the book so very different from us that I could not imagine how the person who gave it to me had ever thought it was similar. Determined to get to the bottom of the matter, I reread the book and then the answer came to me. So much of the terminology was similar to the terminology that we use, that if you didn't have experience in understanding the subtleties of our school, you could easily get fooled into thinking that the other school was the same. The language was similar; the vocabulary was similar. It took very close reading to see how fundamentally different the two schools were. The more I thought about it the more I became convinced that this whole question is tied up with enrollment too, because I think that the better we are recognized for what we are, the more likely it is that the people who enroll here will really want what we are offering..."

"...I have five items to discuss. In each case, I will define the item, tell why I think it is important to our school, and then compare the situation in other schools..."

I invite you to read, "Subtleties of a Democratic School," by Daniel Greenberg, The Sudbury Valley School Experience, 1992.

94.230.80.140 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction 94.230.80.140 (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And something more:

"The fundamental difference between a Sudbury school and any other type of school is the student's level of responsibility. In a Sudbury school the students are solely responsible for their education, their learning methods, their evaluation and their environment..."

"...Why does a Sudbury school give this level of responsibility to the student? It is because Sudbury educators believe that children are capable of assuming this level of responsibility. It is not a type of pedagogical tool used to motivate the students. The responsibility is real; the students absolutely have the ultimate say in their education. Giving real responsibility to the students allows them to gain experience making decisions and handling the consequences of their choices. In this way, the students gain experience and maturity.

Much of the current effort in education is spent attempting to motivate students to learn. A Sudbury school doesn't spend any time attempting to motivate students; we believe that they are inherently motivated. We believe this because all the evidence of childhood development supports it. Anyone who has observed a baby attempting to take his or her first steps or learn to talk can clearly see this. They struggle and fail and continue to struggle and fail until they finally _ on their own _ get it right and start walking and talking. If not suppressed, this inherent motivation to grow and develop does not die when the child reaches school age.

External motivation is only necessary when someone else determines what the student should learn. When the students determine their own curriculum, external motivation is not necessary. Studies have shown that when people determine for themselves what to learn, they retain the subject significantly better than if someone else determines what they should learn.[1]..."

"...Sudbury schools operate very differently than any other type of school. In order to create an environment where the students are responsible for their education, the structure of the school had to change. The most striking difference is that there are no "classrooms" and there are no "teachers" _ at least not in the traditional sense of the words. Students are free to determine how the spend their time each day, they are not limited to a classroom where an adult tells them what they have to learn. They might work on an art project, play sports, cook, dance, read, talk to other students or staff, build a fort, watch birds, do a science experiment, climb a tree, write a story, play a computer game, or work with an off-campus mentor. When students decide they want to learn something new, whether it is an academic subject or not, they either ask a staff member for help, ask another student, or simply learn it on their own...."

-------------

(Footnote)

[1] Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the worse it gets. In, Improving academic achievement: impact of psychological factors on education, J. Aronson (Ed.).]

see: The Sudbury Model of Education by Jeff Collins.

94.230.80.140 (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem so far is that these links/citations can be used as references in the democratic education page. The task at hand is not to differentiate Sudbury schools from traditional schools. That's been done. The task is to find at least one third-party reference from a non-Sudbury school or writer that differentiates the 'Sudbury model' from democratic education generally. The Sudbury Valley School has done amazing things inspiring many individuals and communities to found schools based on democratic principles. However, they were not the first democratic schools and they are not the only incarnations of democratic education. To endlessly cite self-referential material misses the point of the Wikipedia project: neutral, verifiable content. What suggestions do you have to help build this article, anon-editor 94.230.80.140, that fall in line with Wikipedia's policies? Maguire09 (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not claiming Sudbury schools were the first democratic schools, or the only incarnations of democratic education, or plainly different from other schools, as you imply, but in many aspects explicitly different from other democratic schools -- as can be noticed by reading the articles in the links/citations I brought above. To clarify this, I am going to try and integrate some of "Sudbury schools'" page information in "Sudbury Valley School's" page, so everything possible will fall in line with Wikipedia's policies. 94.230.80.140 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The article for Sudbury Valley School goes into some depth as to the differences between its model and Democratic Education. Aaronwinborn (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability and Third-Party Sources

Fortunately, you didn't yet delete the page, so I'm going to restore it for now until we can get this sorted out. For notability, please visit Google Trends, where you will note that the volume of searches for 'sudbury school' has consistently been far greater than for 'democratic school' over the past five years. Additionally, there have been more books written about the Sudbury model of education than for any other single model. If you have other specific concerns of notability, I can help to address them. Meanwhile, as I have time over the next few weeks, I'll work on finding other sources of information. Aaronwinborn (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In the future, please consider how many pages are linking to this before unilaterally deciding to remove or redirect the page. Aaronwinborn (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And finally, if you still wish to move this page, please follow the process and tag it according to Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages by first adding a template. Aaronwinborn (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

1. WP:GOOGLEHITS ≠ notability.
2. All the "books written about the Sudbury model of education" cited to date appear to be written by Sudbury insiders not by third parties. And it is only third party sources that add to notability.
3. Page links also do not add to notability (though do give avenues for investigating additional sources of notability).

The page you restored was linked almost purely to Sudbury-sourced information. As such, it does not meet WP:NOTE. It is also quite problematical in terms of WP:NPOV, in only presenting Sudbury's self-description. I have therefore restored the redirect. If you wish to create the article on the basis of significant coverage in reliable third party sources, you may of course do so -- but an article that does not meet that standard will continue to be subject to redirect, merger or deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, once it's had suitable review via Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages. Aaronwinborn (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merger purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.

— Help:Merging

Your complaint therefore "makes little sense" and "is not a good argument". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merger ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages.

Please refrain from merging the page until it has had suitable time for a more thorough review. I wish to address the changes to meet the NPOV and notability requirements, but it's difficult to do so while the page keeps vanishing. This is requiring some research and collaboration, which I am on. Aaronwinborn (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making tendentious arguments. That the merger WAS NOT CONTROVERSIAL is demonstrated by:

1. The fact that there was no objection when the merger was mooted (albeit informally); and
2. The fact that there had been no complaints about the fact for nearly two months.

That now, nearly two months later, you decide that you WP:IDONTLIKEIT and want to unilaterally want to restore this no-third-party-source 'article', is neither here nor there. It has already been merged. If you want to recreate it then find third-party sources FIRST! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, perhaps you have checked this page every day for two months. I did not learn of the merger until two days ago, and also found there was apparently no review about it. I'm sure we can find some kind of compromise. I do not understand why it upsets you so much to have the page exist for a few days. Particularly since the page you're redirecting it has a tag showing it's on a fast track to deletion as well, which would, if left unaddressed, lead to the effective deletion of both pages entirely. If that is your goal, then why don't you just tag them both for speedy deletion and be done with it. If, on the other hand, in the spirit of the Wikipedia editor community, you wish to help foster and maintain a friendly spirit of collaboration, where we work constructively to create open data for the world, then at least grant a few days to research. I'm sorry that I wasn't aware of the issue until recently. Aaronwinborn (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I have it on my watchlist -- so only check it when somebody changes it. As Help:Merging states, a formal review is not necessary, unless the merge is "controversial" (which would require a timely objection). The article that you're attempting to restore is in violation of WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It therefore does not provide a good basis for a new article -- which should be primarily based upon (significant coverage in) reliable third party sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources: From Psychology Today:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200809/why-we-should-stop-segregating-children-age-part-i-the-value-play-in-the-z http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200809/the-natural-environment-children-s-self-education-how-the-sudbury-valley-s http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200808/children-educate-themselves-iv-lessons-sudbury-valley

Binghamton University: http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/News_Workshop.html

The National Honor Society in Psychology http://www.psichi.org/Pubs/Articles/Article_645.aspx

The American Educational Research Association http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/23/12/00.pdf

There's more; that's just the initial research for sources. However, it's difficult for me to cite them in the article when it has effectively ceased to exist. Aaronwinborn (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(Old) Merger proposal

Merger discussed TWO MONTHS AGO, article merged TWO MONTHS AGO -- WITHOUT CONTROVERSY. Therefore demanding a 'do over' is (i) against Help:Merging & (ii) WP:DISRUPTive.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I just added the merger proposal tag, to generate some proper discussion. Please refrain from redirecting this page until the controversial merger has been resolved. I plan to research for third party sources regarding Sudbury Schools over the next few weeks. If others feel so strongly to redirect or delete the page that they do not wish to grant this allowance, perhaps a moderator should be brought in to arbitrate. Aaronwinborn (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

After finding and adding several sources (Psychology Today, Lois Holzman, Jeff Collins Steven J. Gross), I removed the merger proposal tag, and the third party source tags. Please note any specific criticisms so we can collaborate responsibly and productively, rather than engaging in a fruitless and emotionally draining edit war. Thanks, Aaronwinborn (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Psychology Today piece was written by one of the The Sudbury Valley School's own trustees,[1] so is hardly third party. It is also bears no close resemblance to the contents (as opposed to general tone) of the material it is cited for -- so I'm removing it. I have also removed the vast host of WP:SELFPUB Sudbury School material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to exclude Psychology Today as an unreliable third party source is a bit extreme. I hope you're not suggesting that it counts as self-published. The author of that series of articles is respected well outside the Sudbury school community, including in academia. I grant that perhaps the placement of the citation could be improved. But to exclude anything because a source might be connected to the school is stretching things a bit. Next on the witch hunt will be excluding any source who may have visited the school, or who has ever done a google search on Sudbury schools.

What part of a Sudbury trustee is not a third party and the source does not support the material cited to it did you fail to understand? I did not call it "unreliable" -- so do not give a rat's arse as to whether you consider it to be "a bit extreme". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

We have the same goals, to create the best quality articles possible for Wikipedia. Aaronwinborn (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that although online two months seems like forever, in my excursions to the outside world I have noticed that two months are actually a very brief period of time to most people in offline contexts. Sure, if this were an article about an obscure anime character or the likes, proponents of keeping the status quo would have been much timelier at protesting (they have quicker grapevines and more eyes on Wikipedia, generally speaking). However, people involved in education and parenting tend not to spend quite as much time online, and people knowledgeable and concerned about democratic schooling don't quite check this article every day (because people who know about Sudbury schools don't need to look it up). It's unfair to doom an article simply because no active Wikipedians are involved in its maintenance.

Clearly, this matter has now come to the attention of some people who care about it, and it would only be fair to work together with us to improve the article so that it meets everyone's standards. Are you going to cooperate with those who wish to improve it, Hrafn, or are you going to keep insisting that two months after the merger is far too late to be discussing the matter? -Michael Sappir • (Talk) 19:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael: I've seen anime articles with better sourcing than the article that was merged -- it was exclusively sourced to Sudbury-self-published sources. There were legitimate concerns with it, and it was legitimately merged. That old crappy article is therefore legitimately dead. I have no problem with creating a new article where: (i) there are third party sources (ii) these sources actually support the material cited to them & (iii) this constitutes "significant coverage". I have in fact refrained from restoring the redirect, and have simply removed the old, problematical material. From my point of view you have two choices: you can either move on and attempt to create a new (and hopefully quality) article, or fight to restore the old crappy one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You're missing my point or maybe I'm missing yours (or maybe both.) Yes, we need external sources. However, these are few and they will take a while to collect. My point about anime, if you read it carefully, is not that anime articles are badly sourced, but rather that there are hordes of Wikipedians who care about anime and spend far more time on Wikipedia than educational experts and activists do. The implied point is that because education is an enterprise that takes place mostly offline (in the current climate of education), people who know about or are involved in it are likely, as a group, less quick to correct online wrongs than such special-interest groups which are more online-centered.

We would all like to see a better article. In fact, I see this whole thing as a great opportunity, because it has caused research to surface which I have wished I had many times before. It's just that these things need time -- I and likely Aaron, really likely everyone else who may have the knowledge and interest to improve the article are involved in other things and it might take a few days, yea, weeks, until this matter receives appropriate attention. (Personally, I've been working like crazy in preparation for the general assembly of the European Democratic Education Community, which I will be chairing, in Poland starting Thursday, so it's no surprise I haven't been able to apply myself to the article lately. I wish I could.) It's going to take time, but I assure you that I and others are giving this matter our attention and will improve the article if given the chance. Will you help us or try to hinder us? -Michael Sappir • (Talk) 13:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

1. This is an online encyclopaedia -- it is therefore not unreasonable that it therefore follows online timeframes. The general timeframe of merger discussions is weeks not months (AfDs are even briefer, you will note), so your expectation that decisions on this article should be allowed to fester for months is unreasonable. In any case, decisions are made by those who bother to turn up (and in wikipedia's case especially those who bother to watchlist articles & check their watchlist more than once every few months).
2. The "online wrong" was corrected -- by a merger. Aaronwinborn was attempting to restore the "online wrong".
3. "Yes, we need external sources." Then find them. Then write an article. An obvious corollary of WP:V is that sources come first -- then the article.
4. I would further point out that this crappy article has existed for almost five years without your sainted 'offline-timers' doing anything about it. And I dare say if nobody had merged it, and enforced the merge until somebody was willing to come up with third-party material, it would have stayed in its same crappy state for another five years. So I put it to you that it is not my good intentions that is at issue -- but the intentions of those who to date have shown more interest in there being an article than in the article meeting any sort of quality standards whatsoever.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, Hrafn, I'm not here to fight with you. I don't know you and see no reason for us to be at each other's throats. Look at my previous message -- I said myself that this merger is an opportunity, implicitly a good thing. Let me be perfectly clear: I'm very grateful to you for bringing this matter up. THANK YOU.

Aaron has brought this matter to the attention of myself and of others interested in this topic. We are collecting sources via our contacts and friends involved in democratic schooling. Collecting sources is taking a while. Here are some new ones I have yet to read through: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (all completely third-person as far as I know. Thanks, Bruce and Christel, for the links.)

In the meantime it's good to have some semblance of an article about Sudbury schools on Wikipedia, because this is a topic people are interested, is certainly notable (for a vareity of reasons I will be glad to start listing on request), and most importantly will soon be covered more in-depth and with sources. In the meantime why not look at all the other articles related to education and start helping them improve as well, because Sudbury is certainly not alone in being poorly cited - self-publication is unfortunately the norm in alternative/reform education. If you limit your very wordy, vigorous attack to this article/topic alone, I will have to assume your interests are not only Precisionism but something more specific to the subject matter. That would be disappointing, because under different circumstances I would likely have been on your side.

Again, thank you, and good day to you. -Michael Sappir • (Talk) 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

1. If "[you're] not here to fight with [me]" then I'm not sure what this war-of-words that you started, and in which you've been more verbose than myself, has been about.
2. I am well aware of the tendency towards self-publication, and worse a not-infrequent tendency towards self-citation in article editing, in the area of education -- it's the trail that led me to this article in the first place. I have no particular desire to further plumb its depths. My 'interest', which I have done nothing to hide, has simply been to ensure that an article, which is on my watchlist, and whose merger I supported (but did not perform), does not get recreated without correcting the shortcomings of the original. I had made that limited interest clear by word & deed before you even joined the fray, and I certainly hadn't intimated any 'interest' beyond such.

At the end of the day, I have little control over how you view my "interests", so will simply do what I have been doing since before you arrived on the scene: 'watch[list] & wait'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hrafn! I'm glad we have some other eyes on this to help make the article high quality. I also want to work more on addressing the NPOV tag soon, and would appreciate someone looking over my shoulder when we get to that. Aaronwinborn (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Where on earth did the article go?

Who blanked most of the content? The thing can be improved, but blanking the content doesn't make sense, given the merger discussion failed. Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V. Removal of unsourced content and/or content sourced in violation of WP:SELFPUB is not blanking. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There's problems with the content. Needs a rewrite. But much of content removed meets WP:V. Removing it isn't the solution, and makes it difficult to properly attribute. Nfitz (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, "much of content removed" does not meet WP:V -- either because it is unsourced or because most of what was sourced was "based primarily on" sources WP:SELFPUB by the Sudbury schools. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm in the middle of trying to fix it ... and you still remove what I've just fixed? Nfitz (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because you were doing bulk restores of unfixed problematical material -- much of which I see you've since deleted yourself again (though still containing large swathes of unsourced/WP:SELFPUB material). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed ... have to restore it, before you edit. Some stuff wasn't necessary. I think that's a substantial improvement. There's a couple of "self-published" claims left ... but they are about school procedures ... and isn't referencing school documents a good example? Looking at Canada for example, I don't see anyone objecting to Government of Canada publications as being self-published! Nfitz (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as the self-published material isn't excessive, about third parties or unduly self-serving (which doesn't seem to be the case, at least now that most if it has been trimmed), it should be fine. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• User:Hrafn is at it again, removing content that he seemed fine with previously. He also keeps wiping and redirecting the Daniel Greenberg page. I don't know what his issue is .... Can others look at that page, and this, and add if necessary? Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of uncited info after several months of it being {{cn}} tagged is in line with WP:V policy. It's up to editors who want content to provide cites for it, not for others to do that legwork. DMacks (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)User:Nfitz "is at it again", recreating a page from redirect without demonstrating that Daniel Greenberg meets notability guidelines (or even discussing the issue on article talk), in the process violating WP:Synthesis there & WP:BURDEN here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Disputed text is now edited and referenced. I wish editors would spend more time just fixing what needs to be fixed, rather than creating such drama! Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to merge Daniel Greenberg into here. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I am proposing that Daniel Greenberg be merged here per:

1. Failure of that article to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC.
2. WP:Merging#Rationale #4 'context' "If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." Greenberg's sole claim to notability is his involvement in the Sudbury school, so it makes sense, that if he is to be discussed, it should be done so here.
3. WP:Merging#Rationale #3 'text' "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." The article is four years old, and in spite of the issue being heavily hammered over the last two months, and still does not meet notability guidelines.

I will admit that I have previously attempted to merge the article here as a bare-redirect. Greenberg is mentioned here, and I did not think that the small amount of additional material on him added much to this article. However, if this material needs to be included somewhere, it makes more sense to do so here. I will also note that Nfitz's preferred version of that material is slightly longer -- it says the same thing, but at slightly greater length (via WP:SYNTH & an unnecessary WP:NONENG source). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Have posted this to WP:Proposed mergers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see no need for this merger. It's been established on the Talk page for Daniel Greenberg that he is notable. That being said, that page, and this page, both need work. Nfitz (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• That is WP:Complete bollocks. It has NOT "been established on the Talk page for Daniel Greenberg that he is notable." Nfitz asserted (without substantiation) that Greenberg met WP:ACADEMIC (in an edit summary, I seem to remember), when challenged on that on article talk, they dropped WP:ACADEMIC & suggested WP:AUTHOR instead, on being challenged on that, Nfitz dropped the topic of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh ... well it certainly hasn't been established he isn't notable! As far as I can see, only one editor has made this claim! Nfitz (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• You admitted that WP:ACADEMIC was perhaps "a bit of a stretch" when challenged on its specific criteria, and failed to offer, when challenged, a specific criteria of WP:AUTHOR that Greenberg meets. It is therefore "established" that no substantive defence of Greenberg's notability has been mounted. It generally cannot be "established" that a topic "isn't notable", as it is generally impossible to prove a negative. The normal standard is therefore to place the burden on those wishing to establish notability. You have, to date, failed to meet that burden. So kindly refrain form the theatrical sighs -- as you don't have a leg to stand on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I thought we had discussed this previously. I'd say that he meets both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR; he meet's item 1 of The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. of WP:ACADEMIC, however it might be easier to discuss WP:AUTHOR as it is clearer, where he meets both 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. and 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. . Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge: I reviewed the Greenberg talk page there, and Nfitz, you had discussed this, but you did not convince. You dropped your claim. The notability requirements you quote need independent reliable sources, and Greenberg needs to be widely cited. Since the main issue Hrafn has is sourcing, I agree that you've yet to establish notability, which is a requirement for an article. The burden of proof has not been met. Auntie E. 19:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nfitz response to me on my talk page; I will respond here.

"There are numerous sources that support notability claims ... and it is these that the the user in question keeps deleting .. and then argues that he isn't notable!" - Nfitz

I looked at what Hrafn deleted. You had four sources, none of them showed that Greenberg's "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nor was he "widely cited by his peers and successors." I don't see any "significant" impact that his concept has had. There are notable people who have founded alternative pedagogy. He's just not one of them.

I do have a question: do you have a conflict of interest here? I see from your contributions that you edit from a school. Auntie E. 19:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• • The Sudbury model is notable, and he's the chief architect. Surely then he's notable. The references were problematic, and I've just gone through and replaced 2, and restored an earlier one that I don't see an objection too, that seems to have got lost during various edits. In terms of COI, I don't see an issue; I'm not involved in any schools, let alone any Sudbury schools; I did briefly volunteer in one that no longer exists, but I don't see that's COI. I'm fully (overly!) employed as an engineer by a well-known consulting firm, and have never received any renumeration from any school presently or previously existing; I don't even live in a country with any Sudbury schools! Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NOTINHERITED, and in any case it has not been established that "he's the chief architect." After removal of claims & WP:PEACOCKery not in the cited sources, this 'replacement' amounts to using three references for the same claims that I had cited to one, plus a statement about Sudbury schools -- which is more relevant here than in an article on Greenberg anyway. No change to level of evidence of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Frankly, I have absolutely no idea what you are saying here. Can you try it again in simple and clear English without simply noting various policies without providing any context; your write like this a legal brief, rather than a comprehensible comment. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Frankly", I think "I have absolutely no idea" pretty much sums up much of what you're saying here. I also think the meaning and the apllicability-to-your-argument of the above link is clear enough. If I am "brief", it is because I have already wasted entirely to much time correcting you on (often blatantly) erroneous points. "Try" reading WP:NOTINHERITED and working out yourself how it applies to the claim that "The Sudbury model is notable, and he's the chief architect. Surely then he's notable." I'm sure its blindingly obvious to everybody else reading this thread. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• don't see how that his notability is inherited. If I was making that claim, I would have claimed that any of the other founders were notable, and I've said the obvious earlier. It would make the discussion easier if you didn't fall into quotes of policy and legalese every few words, Wikipedia is not about policy ... it's about community. To use your language, your in danger of forgetting WP:NOTSTATUTE Nfitz (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The Sudbury model is notable … Surely then he's notable." = BLATANT WP:INHERITED argument. "don't see how that his notability is inherited" ROFLMAO Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware what I said ... I was simply astounded that anyone would question what seems an obvious claim. Of course it isn't inherited ... as I've already pointed out. He meets notability by meeting WP:AUTHOR and I've made that claim since August. Why do you choose to be so uncivil? That's another WP:CIVIL violation. And why do you ignore the claim to notability I've made and simply debate other issues? Nfitz (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(i) A legitimate appeal to WP:AUTHOR would require in-depth third-party discussion of his ideas, not mere mention in passing whilst discussing Sudbury. Any argument of the type Notable(A) => Notable(B) is WP:INHERITED. (ii) You have been pervasively incivil towards me from the start. Likewise #Where on earth did the article go? should perhaps be renamed Where on earth did Nfitz's civility go. Where that incivility is tends to have little or no basis in policy or fact, and tends to be expressed at great length, it will tend to evoke a fairly curt & blunt response. Where it is followed up by WP:POT accusations of incivility, it will tend to provoke laughter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil in that you edit you diffed! It was a simple revert; and the edit comment was neutral. The section title might be a bit iffy, but it's nothing compared to your gross and frequent violations of WP:CIVIL; how you can compare anything I've ever written to the use of such comments as ROFLMAO suprises me; look, I'm sorry about the loss of your ass, but I really don't think you can hold me responsible for that! Nfitz (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • I also note that I hadn't dropped the claim that Greenberg was notable, I thought that the claim that he wasn't notable had been dropped after much work had been done on the article, and the person who made it had started editing the article, rather than trying to delete it. Nfitz (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is the state you left the article in. It contains not even the pretension that the article meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. It also contains the exact same information as my, more concise & policy-violations-eliminated, version. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• • So? And I also said it needed work. To support notability, most people ask for a range of references from various sources. Why you would prefer to use a single source I don't understand. As far as I can see, you seemed to remove the sources, and then argue that the person wasn't notable. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• "So?" So you abandoned this inadequate stub and then act all surprised and hard-done-by when it is redirected. So "a range of" two trivial bare-mentions (inserted in violation of policy -- WP:SYNTH & WP:NONENG), explicitly do not add to notability. So adding or removing them MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO NOTABILITY -- as you have been told again and AGAIN and AGAIN. I am sick to death of your pervasive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I never abandoned it ... in only a few weeks it had vanished, after I thought a consensus had been reached on acceptability. You went from editing the article, to shortly afterwards with no intervening edits removing all the text, without attempting to merge. You seem to think that in a few days or weeks an article should suddenly be brought up to standard; this assumes editors have at least a few hours a week to devote to such tasks; clearly such demands on ones time are unreasonable. I returned to see how it could be improved, only to find it gone; and have since devoted any time I had available for this project, to these unnecessary debates. I'm not sure why you continue to take away from the project by creating these debates, rather than working on the project itself. Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• (i) No edits for 7 weeks on previously redirected inadequate stub = abandonment. (ii) The article's talkpage gave no indication of that "a consensus had been reached on acceptability". (iii) 4 weekjs ≠ "shortly afterwards". (iv) If you do not have "at least a few hours a week to devote to such tasks" then you should not have taken up the WP:BURDEN of demonstrating that this should be a separate article. (v) These "unnecessary debates" would not be nearly as time-consuming if you did not keep bringing up patently substance-free points. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I assume that consensus had been reached. I barely ever came here during that 7 week period - obviously one doesn't have time to come and check pages on a monthly basis .... Why do you violate WP:FAITH and not accept that's what I believed? Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT -- Nfitz had already been pointed to {{notability}} on this point -- if he doesn't wish to believe that, then he can read WP:Notability which that template summarises, and which makes this point as well. It is also brought up in WP:BEFORE. This thread started off so entirely pointless that it could not 'devolve' further.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment. This merger seems to be based on the claim that Greenberg not being notable. Is merger then the appropriate procedure, as it would leave a redirect. If Greenberg isn't notable, would there even be a redirect? Nfitz (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC) This point has already been addressed in Talk:Daniel Greenberg#Further erroneous restoration 'Further' point #2. I would further point out that an editor who recently quoted WP:RFD at me is not in a position to pretend ignorance of the minimum requirement for the presence of a redirect (WP:RFD makes no mention of notability as a requirement). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Surely we haven't devolved to the point where the header on a warning is our documentation of policy! Where is the policy? You may well be correct, but I'm not seeing the policy. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. I support the merger proposed by Hrafn for the reasons given by him. Daniel Greenberg is not yet sufficiently notable to have an article. PYRRHON  talk   04:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:MERGE says that:

Merging should not be considered if:

1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short

Both condition 2 and 3 are true. Both topics could be expanded, and in particular, both are discrete topics and deserve their own articles. Essentially this comes down to notability. If the subject is notable, the merge shouldn't take place. If he isn't, then I agree it should take place. And based on other precedents, I think the place to make this assessment is at AfD. Nfitz (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rebuttal: Daniel Greenberg is almost entirely on the topic's involvement in the Sudbury School, so #3 "discrete subjects" does not apply. The only non-overlapping element is that Greenberg was a Columbia Physics Professor, which could easily be included here as a (very small amount of) background in discussing Greenberg in this article. 4 years and only a short paragraph implies that expansion is unlikely in the immediate future. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in that rebuttle to counter either of my points. Nfitz (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge – Greenberg's notability is entirely tied to the school. If significant third party coverage of him meeting notability is subsequently found, the redirect could then be expanded to an article, but at present Daniel Greenberg essentially serves as a list of books and articles about Sudbury schools. That list could usefully be added to this article, and the remaining information about him could be covered in a sentence. . . dave souza, talk 08:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Why are you arguing that his notability is tied to the school, when the merger is being proposed with the philosophy, rather than the school? Ironically the list of books and articles was only added after someone tried to prod it ... Nfitz (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complaint of improper closure

• Improper closure. The closer should be someone who isn't closely tied to the debate. Particularily not the person who started the debate. Besides, there isn't enough voices heard ... relist for greater consensus. Nfitz (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Proper closure. (i) Merge proposals do not require a neutral party to close them. (ii) As it has already been listed at WP:Proposed mergers, there is nowhere (and no mechanism) to "relist" it. (iii) A 4-1 WP:CONSENSUS, after listing on WP:Proposed mergers, and neither new opinions, or any sign of wavering in old opinions for more than a week, is quite sufficient. Your complaint thus has no basis in policy. You simply don't like the result. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  5 opinions in the first four days, and no new opinions in the 10 days since would appear to indicate that it is unlikely that sufficient opinions to overturn the current consensus will be forthcoming in a timely manner. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Controversial mergers should have a neutral party to close them as per WP:MM where it states that If the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator. I'm concerned that both your (and my) closeness to the discussion would preclude either of us from closing the discussion. While there are no mechanisms to "relist" as such, there are several mechanisms that would serve the same function. The combination of keeping the discussion open (it's hardly been open that long compared to many merger discussions) and requesting a review through various mechanisms would serve that function. Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• (i) Help:Merging DOES NOT STATE that "controversial mergers should have a neutral party to close them". "May"≠"should". "May" implies discretion. (ii) In any case, a lone dissent (no matter how obstinate and vocal) does not make a fairly clear-cut WP:CONSENSUS "particularly controversial". For your interpretation to be correct, the guideline would have to read "If the merger is not unanimous, one should take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Clearly the guidelines suggest that an impartial closer should be used. Your reading this like a legal document, obviously the language isn't precise for every situation ... but remember this is a community, not a legal document. Nfitz (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've now requested assistance; please let someone else do it to keep it clean. Nfitz (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Clearly" if the guidelines had meant "should" they would have said "should". "Clearly" the guidelines "suggest" nothing of the sort! "Clearly" your idiosyncratic interpretation has no basis in the clear wording of the guideline. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I believe I have correctly interpreted the intent of the guideline. Nfitz (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• And the ability of people to "believe" things that are demonstrably untrue has always flabbergasted me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please remain civil. Comment on the issue, not the person. Nfitz (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• You made your 'belief' the "issue" so I 'commented' upon it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• 24 hours since you posted on WP:AN, and no response -- which I think can be taken as administrative disinterest in the issue. Unless an admin turns up shortly, I intend to reinstate the redirect on the basis of the above WP:CONSENSUS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin, I'd been hoping some newer face would pop up so I had not commented here yet. But anyway, the closure looks good. At this time, there was good support for merger. Dissent was "no, he is individually notable". But I agree that the burden of proof for his individual notability was not met. He is important in the context of this article, so merging some material from his page into this page (as it relates to this page) is appropriate in my view. DMacks (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am the editor who added that wording in October 2008, based on observing a few infrequent requests at AN. The wording "one may take the optional step" (emphasis added) was deliberate to highlight its status as a suggestion. My opinion is that if discussion is at all lively, it's easier to request an admin before a dispute arises over the close. Flatscan (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Another merger proposal

Sudbury Valley School is the first/model example of this educational philosophy/school type. That article's Sudbury Valley School#Educational philosophy and maybe Sudbury Valley School#Subtleties of a democratic school sections represent a substantial portion of that school's page and is well-cited from educational philosophy (and other) reliable sources. However, they are really about the school type rather than this particular school (specific example of this type). Sudbury school is about the school type, so I think this information is more appropriate here, with just a quick summary and wikilink in the actual school's page. Others' thoughts? DMacks (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• A careful rewrite of both pages, so that large amounts of material is not duplicated would be reasonable, particularily if it avoided the gross removal of material that some users appear to prefer to actually fixing problematic text. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If text lacks verification, please provide a suitable source so that it can be kept instead of complaining about removal of long tagged material. . dave souza, talk 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any text on either page that is tagged! Am I missing something? Both pages seen extraordinarily well sourced, especially compared to the average Wikipedia article! Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sudbury Valley School and Sudbury School should be merged. The articles have too much overlap to be separate. PYRRHON  talk   04:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • An interesting opinion, but that's not what has been proposed. Nfitz (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • However, a good point. There seem to be at least three short articles covering aspects of the subject which could usefully be brought together into one more comprehensive and informative article. . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't see the point though; there is certainly editing that can be done to eliminate the duplication; but ultimately one is about a single school in Boston; and the other is about a philosophy found in schools around the world - some of which also have pages discussing them. Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Nfitz, we get it! You are on a mission. You have a cause, and you want to publicize it. The trouble is that Wikipedia is not a great place to publicize little-known causes. The public is not familiar with Sudbury Valley School or Daniel Greenberg at this time. Thus no matter how much information you put here, almost no one is going to be looking for it. Your best hope to promote your cause is make ONE well-written, succinct article about the school and its people, and to link the article to the school's official website. Then you have to hope that millions of parents and teachers have nothing better to do than work their way through Wikipedia from Education to Democratic school to List of Sudbury schools to Sudbury Valley School to the link. PYRRHON  talk   21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • ??? I've put very little information on the subjects in question. I've hardly touched this particular article except for filling in some missing citations, as requested by other. It's not my cause! And hardly something that is even prominent in my edit history? How is this relevant to the discussion? Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Nfitz, in light of your remarks, I think Wikipedia's editors should resolve the proposal by Hrafn first. When that proposal is resolved, I think a formal proposal to merge Sudbury Valley School with Sudbury school would be in order. PYRRHON  talk   23:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough ... but not surprisingly, there doesn't actually seem to be much discussion; which is why I recommended originally taking it to AfD. Nfitz (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would have concerns about merging material from that article here. Significant chunks are unsourced, and what sources are there are almost exclusively Sudbury-affiliated. On the other hand, I do think there is significant overlap, and suspect that there may be insufficient non-overlapping third party coverage (and thus non-overlapping notability) to sustain two articles. Thus my overall viewpoint is neutral at this time, but subject to change. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this merger. There are something like 40 Sudbury model schools, but those schools are unaffiliated with Sudbury Valley School. Not sure if this proposal is still active, noticing the failed proposal below here. Aaronwinborn (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger Two

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was NO MERGER of Sudbury Valley School with Sudbury school. -- PYRRHON  talk   02:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Sudbury Valley School into Sudbury school because most of the content of Sudbury Valley School repeats the content of Sudbury school. Furthermore, Sudbury Valley School uses a great many words to say very little.

I propose to put into Sudbury school the following summary of Sudbury Valley School:

The first Sudbury school was the Sudbury Valley School. It was founded in 1968 in Framingham, Massachusetts, and is still (2009) operating. The main school building is a large Victorian-style mansion. Other buildings have facilities for woodworking and other activities. The school is equipped with computers, which have access to the Internet.

The Sudbury Valley School originated the practice of choosing faculty and staff by an annual election (by secret ballot) in which faculty, staff, parents, and students may participate. Eighty percent of Sudbury Valley School's alumni have graduated from college.

I propose to move the section: ==Additional reading== from Sudbury Valley School to Sudbury school.

I will omit the list of staff per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

I propose to re-organize and improve the writing in Sudbury school. PYRRHON  talk   18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see any need for this. We've already discussed that there is duplication between the two articles that should be removed; however Sudbury Valley School easily meets WP:SCHOOL and (unusually for a school) easily meets WP:GNG. As there are aspects of the school itself that are not relevent to the model, and the model isn't about a particular school, then I don't see the reason to do anything other than clean up the two current articles. Nfitz (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose perhaps I am missing something, but wouldn't this be akin to merging University of Chicago with Chicago school of economics? The school seems to meet all of the necessary requirements for an article, and it seems the educational philosophy which bears it sname has grown beyond just the one school. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• If we had an article on "University of Chicago" which did almost nothing but talk about the "Chicago school of economics", I would likewise recommend merging the former into the latter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Qualified support. Sudbury Valley School is almost solely referenced to SVS-affiliated sources. What little third-party material would therefore easily fit in here (the 'qualification' on my support being that the non-third-party material to be merged be kept to an absolute minimum). Further, there is almost no information in Sudbury Valley School on 'the school in Sudbury Valley' as opposed to 'an example of the Sudbury School style of democratic schooling', making the overlap almost complete. An article on 'the school in Sudbury Valley' could probably be created -- but the existing article ain't it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Support per Hrafn: As it is I don't see the need for a separate article on the Valley school - the content isn't there.

I, Aunt Entropy, and Hrafn are in favour of the merger. Nfitz and LonelyBeacon are opposed to the merger. So, a majority favours the merger, but there is NO CONSENSUS to accept my proposal. Therefore, my proposal is REJECTED. The proposal by DMacks remains open for discussion. PYRRHON  talk   02:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.