Talk:Joshua Greenberg

Notability

This issue is addressed in a paragraph which is cited with uncommon specificity; but I'm at a loss to explain why it was disregarded so casually. The serial edits of ConcernedVancouverite make clear that I need help figuring out how to have handled this more effectively. This paragraph was deleted here with a criesp edit summary -- removing original research that didn't have reliable secondary sources.

David Ferriero, the Chief Executive of the Research Libraries at the New York Public Library (NYPL) explains that "wooing Josh Greenberg away from George Mason University and keeping him for more than a year-and-a-half" was a major accomplishment, perhaps his greatest achievement at NYPL? That generous and complimentary remark from the man President Obama has nominated to be the 10th Archivist of the United States. reveals volumes about what Ferriero construes as having value; and it suggests something noteworthy about Greenberg as well.

Perhaps on re-reading, it will become clear that this edit was unjustified; and it becomes consequently unnecessary to address the other edits seriatim? In this context, perhaps it will be expedient to make a few facts explicit:

• FACT: President Obama did nominate David Ferriero to be the 10th Archivist of the United States.

I don't understand the problem in citing the White House Press release, particularly when the citation incorporates a link which allows the source to be confirmed directly. If this needs to be paired with a news story from the New York Times or Washington Post, it would be an easy matter to provide; but this begs the question: Why?

• FACT: Archivist-designee Ferriero did say that "wooing Josh Greenberg away from George Mason University and keeping him for more than a year-and-a-half" was a major accomplishment, perhaps his greatest achievement at NYPL?

Archivist-designee Ferriero did explicitly comment in the context of a panel discussion which includes a program officer in digital media and learning at the MacArthur Foundation; and the citation incorporates a link which allows Ferriero's statement to be confirmed directly here, e.g.,

Session 4 - Chasing the Edge and Maintaining the Core

How should institutions respond to the increasing need to innovate? What are strategies to balance innovation with the demands of maintaining core services, especially on limited budgets? How can institutions make their "edge" innovations more visible to those managing their core services?

Speakers:

David Ferriero, Andrew W. Mellon Director of the New York Public Libraries New York Public Library

Troy Livingston, Vice President for Innovation and Learning, Museum of Life and Science in Durham, NC

Patrick Whitney, Dean of the Institute of Design, Illinois Institute of Technology

Moderator:

Benjamin Stokes - Program Officer in Digital Media & Learning, The MacArthur Foundation

In this instance, the primary sources are accessible for readers to confirm

Edit history questions in context

I simply don't understand the perceived problems which the following edit history encompasses:

• 1. diff 15:41, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite m (5,448 bytes) (Added {{article issues}} with parameters npov, refimproveBLP, synthesis and unencyclopedic tag to article. using Friendly)
• 2. diff 15:44, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite) (5,360 bytes) (fact tags and removing self-citation)

Question: In other settings, I have used CVs in developing articles about academics, e.g., former-Harvard University Libraries head, Professor Sidney Verba, Professor Harold Bolitho, etc. Is this specific cite different because it's derived from a blog link?

• 3. (diff 15:46, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite) (5,229 bytes) (removing promotional link)

Question: In other settings, I have used material from a publisher's website, e.g., Global Oriental and Professor Ian Nish, Ambassador Hugh Cortazzi, etc. This critical comment needs expanding because I don't see the problem well enough to guess about what is perceived as wrong.

• 4. diff 15:48, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite (5,062 bytes) (removing self-citation and adding fact tags)
• 5. diff 15:49, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite (5,042 bytes) (→New York Public Library: removing self-cite) (undo)
• 6. diff) 15:51, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite (4,169 bytes) (→New York Public Library: removing original research that didn't have reliable secondary sources)
• 7. diff 15:53, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite (3,413 bytes) (→New York Public Library: removing non-neutral language)
• 8. diff 15:54, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite (3,317 bytes) (→New York Public Library: removing non-cited non-neutral BLP claim) (undo)
• 9. diff 15:56, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite (2,924 bytes) (→New York Public Library: non-notable fact)
• 10. diff 15:57, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite (2,332 bytes) (→References: removing peripheral references)
• 11. diff 15:58, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite (2,337 bytes) (section header)
• 12 diff 15:59, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite m (2,330 bytes) (→External links: typo fix)
• 13. diff 16:01, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite (2,285 bytes) ("Research Assistant Professor" is an odd title, and doesn't sound like faculty - perhaps research staff?)
• 14. diff 16:02, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite (2,216 bytes) (removing tags after pruning)
• 15. diff 16:03, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite m (2,261 bytes) (Added {{notability}} tag to article. using Friendly)
• 16. diff 16:05, 2 October 2009 ConcernedVancouverite (2,513 bytes) (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW))

As an aside, I've just been developing an article about an idiomatic expression which may apply in this situation: Is it timely to say that ConcernedVancouverite has thrown out the baby with the bathwater? --Tenmei (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Neutrality

I do not understand the rationale which informs any questions about the neutrality of this article.--Tenmei (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

I don not understand the rationale which informs any questions about synthesis in this article. --Tenmei (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversions

I explained the logic behind each reversion in detail in the edit notes. Basically self-citations are not acceptable to establish notability, and facts about people who comment on the individual are peripheral and do not appear to be neutral. Language such as "That generous and complimentary remark from the man President Obama has nominated to be the 10th Archivist of the United States." do not sound neutral. That is synthesis and drawing conclusions. Additionally it is not about the subject of the article, so it isn't relevant in this article. It would be relevant in an article about David Ferraro. Additionally any claims in a BLP article about a living person need to be in neutral third party reliable sources - not primary sources that were not reported elsewhere. Such third party reliable sources would suggest it was notable enough to be included in the article. You may want to refer to WP:RS, WP:N, WP:BLPSTYLE, and WP:ACADEMIC for further details as to the logic. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt feedback. I cannot invest any more time just now, but I will return to this is a few hours.

Let me make one thing clear, since it seems to be an issue. I am not Joshua Greenberg, nor am I David Ferriero. This represents only the second time that this perceived issue has been raised; and I have to guess that it is only because these men happen to live and work in the same city where I do? If geolocate had identified my location as Prince Rupert, British Columbia, for example, would this have been a non-issue? Only rarely do I invest time in articles about living persons.

Please be assured that I am prepared to address each point you raise, and an improved article will be the ultimate result. --Tenmei (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm not sure why you would raise an issue about you having a WP:COI as I did not raise any such issue. When you say it is the second time the issue has been raised, can you refer to the diffs to clarify what you mean? I have raised my concerns about this article not based on any geolocation - I did not know you were in New York until you just said so. I raised my concerns for the stated reasons that the article was relying on non-reliable sources for claims that were non-neutral. Following the policy of WP:BLP such claims should be deleted until sourced correctly from reliable independent sources that establish notability. If you can find such notable independent sources I look forward to them being included. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

ConcernedVancouverite -- Your edits implicate a wide range of issues; and because I do occasionally work on articles about living academics, I feel justified in delving into this a little bit. It is arguably worth the investment of time as I ask you to defend your edits and to help convert this into a teachable moment.

• A. The pronoun "self" in "self-citations are not acceptable to establish notability" was not clear initially. For you, this was banal wiki-speak; but for me, it was not sufficiently clarified by a context also laden with wiki-catchwords and catchphrases and wiki-shortcut rationales. Was I to construe this pronoun to refer to me as I self-create an article about myself? No, you say. This leaves me to presume the term refers to the material cited from Greenberg's CV, as in Greenberg writing about himself. If so, fine. If not, please clarify. I did not distinguish this from any other curriculum vitae provided in any other academic faculty web page; but I'm guessing you interpret the institutional website as providing an imprimatur different from this personal blog? If so, please state this plainly and identify the sentence or sentences in a policy statement which should have helped me to have known how to judge differently? I will modify my future edits accordingly.

You did find the source citation was clear -- yes? There was never a question about where I found the academic record which was posted? I did, at least, get that part correct -- yes?

In revisiting other articles to which I've contributed, I found this illustrative example at Columbia. Does this example help to illustrate your point?

• REITI bio, Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry ≠ Faculty bio, Columbia

• B. Nothing about the above was posted to establish notability. This is apples and oranges.

Nothing in the CV was cited to establish notability. The paragraph which is doubtless very clear to you is gobbledygook to me. I accept that I must learn to decipher this "convoluted language" of wiki-experts, and you can help. In this context, I do not conflate WP:V and WP:N.

In this instance, as I see it, notability relies on only one source -- the assessment of David Ferriero, which you have excluded for reasons unrelated to Greenberg's CV. --Tenmei (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Article cleanup

Per WP:BLP I have removed all original research. I have also removed synthesized material per WP:SYN. I have also removed uncited BLP claims that did not establish notabliity in reliable independent sources. It is critical in BLP articles that claims are written conservatively. As per WP:BLP, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Please avoid adding any original research, synthesized claims, or uncited/poorly cited BLP claims. Thank you! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

ConcernedVancouverite -- In my view, your contributions here are helpful. However, I would have thought there was no reason for you to have included one provocative sentence.

As per WP:BLP, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

The words deride and ignore the seriousness with which edits have been posted and discussed in the article itself and on this page. If you are disinclined to strike out this sentence, please explain why not.

In this limited, words like "tabloid" and "sensationalist" and "titilating" are disparaging and derisive. No sentence in this article has ever had anything to do with "tabloid" prose and "sensationalist" writing and "titilating" text.

Please strike out this one offending sentence. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei: I have responded to this exact same inquiry by you on the talk page of David Ferriero here: [1]. One example in this article of a non-substantiated non-neutral claim is here: [2]. There are others, but honestly I do not have the time to go back through the edit logs to pull up the diffs for you. The editing history is there and you are welcome to go through them based upon my clear editing notes as well. Happy editing! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I did not construe this sentence as representing the same kind of problem as the "ageist" label. Thank you for investing the time in helping me to draw conclusions I would have otherwise overlooked. --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - assuming it's appropriate for me to put some pointers here as the subject of the article (if this belongs in a different subheading, please correct me). A good amount of information on both me and the digital group at NYPL appears in the recently-published "This Book is Overdue", by Marilyn Johnson...would be useful for add'l detail on my work at NYPL. Also, a few clarifications - I was never a reviewer for H-SHEAR, and my name's spelled "GreenbErg" (it's misspelled in the article, but didn't seem appropriate for me to edit this page at all myself). Finally, the DEG was involved with helping to skin the public interface of the NYPL catalog, but deeper issues (including the technology platform and catalog data) were the purview of the Library's Collections & Circulation Operations group. Any questions, please post on my user talk page. Epistemographer (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Josh, I added the book, fixed the msispelling, and removed the H-SHEAR claim. In terms of fixing/discussing DEG and using "This Book is Overdue", I'll leave that for somebody else to do. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Response

Tenmei: In response to your requests for more information, go ahead and click on these links to learn more about the policies cited: WP:SYN WP:N WP:RS WP:BLP WP:ACADEMIC WP:SPS WP:SELFPUB. The policies do a clear job of explaining sourcing, synthesized material, BLP policies, etc. You'll note after reading through those that notability needs to be established in independent reliable sources, that articles should not synthesize and draw conclusions on their own, and that a person's CV (or anything else they self-publish) can not be used as a citation except when 1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. I hope that clears things up for you. Happy editing! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and accept that articles about living people need to be held to the highest standards.

Moreover, it is plain to me that ConcernedVancouverite's edits are only designed to further these high standards. In such a dispute, everyone wins -- even if the end result happens to be that this article will be deleted until a better foundation can be developed. --Tenmei (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Permanent link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Greenberg --Tenmei (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=05DD3784-44A3-4DC1-9FC7-55A0AC5BBBB7

  Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Joshua Greenberg

Cyberbot II has detected links on Joshua Greenberg which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=05DD3784-44A3-4DC1-9FC7-55A0AC5BBBB7

  Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joshua Greenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nysun.com/arts/one-library-out-of-many/59173/-
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100802120452/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11415 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11415
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gmu.edu/catalog/0708/admin/g.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714080332/http://2007.sxsw.com/interactive/programming/panels/?action=bio&id=82070 to http://2007.sxsw.com/interactive/programming/panels/?action=bio&id=82070
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716090352/http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/webwise/090226/default.cfm?id=10694&type=wmhigh&test=0 to http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/webwise/090226/default.cfm?id=10694&type=wmhigh&test=0

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)