Talk:Michael Bérubé/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Michael Bérubé. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

MLA presidency

I don't know if this requires its own section on the main page, but if someone wants to take the above suggestion and write something about my term as president of the Modern Language Association, my MLA presidential address is online here--

http://www.mla.org/pres_address_2013

-- and my published statements as MLA president are here:

http://www.mla.org/blog_index?folder=105 --MB— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.76.56 (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Question for administrator

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Request for admin intervention in edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.104.241.66 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2014‎ (UTC)

The appropriate forum would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of material

There has been some text removed from this page, apparently due to vandalism or some relation to the Regis High School. Please discuss here what makes the text in question vandalism or otherwise inappropriate. The editing guide says, "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." It could be that there is some offensive inside joke here, and if so note that here, but at first glance there didn't seem to be any blatant vandalism on the page. To assume good faith is a community guideline.

There should be more information dedicated to this professor's time as MLA President. That material (if there is enough of it) should be put under a separate section header. The blog and its dates of publication should be mentioned, but a separate section dedicated to it seems excessive (especially when there are several books he wrote that don't receive as much treatment).68.188.185.225 (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The version had to be restored again because someone reverted back to an outdated copy from May. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.47.91 (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism and errors on this page have been undone, including an irrelevant paragraph devoted to an essay about the GRE exam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.76.56 (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A notable English professor takes a GRE and describes the experience in a Chronicle of High Ed article is certainly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.47.91 (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Relevant to what, exactly? The essay, on my reading, is about how the exam itself is irrelevant to graduate programs in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandolin8 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The article demonstrates an important contribution he has made to the profession. It also has some excellent biographical material about his experience with the same exams as he was coming into the profession. The article is a very interesting take on the academy's measures, and it shows how Berube is dedicated to continual improvement of his field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.47.91 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. But in my humble opinion (as the author of the article), it's not a very important contribution. More to the point, the paragraph in the main article doesn't say any of this-- it just records my scores, which is weird (but fits the pattern of someone who is very interested in my high school). --MB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.7.105 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is more important than the opinion of a person trying to write their own page.

There's no consensus-- just one user obsessed with one thing. And I don't write my own page-- I just try to keep people from defacing it, especially when my friends (and my department head!) tell me that people are messing with my Wikipedia page and I should try to fix it.

Oh, and just caught your attempt to doctor the quote from the Boston Globe essay to make it look like I was saying that the American bombing of an Afghan wedding party was a blow for human freedom. Nice try! It almost worked. --MB 68.175.7.105 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.7.105 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No - my edit might have been bad but that wasn't the intent. The quote from that article is garbled and I wanted to clarify it. Berube supports Bush W in Afghanistan not Iraq, lost moral compass, and gained "Human freedom" are the important parts. Rest of that quote is doublespeak.24.179.47.91 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no doublespeak. The antiwar left was correct about Kakrak (it was an atrocity, and I did not believe the official term "intelligence failure" captured that, hence the scare quotes) but, I believed, mistaken about the desirability of destroying Al-Qaeda's base camp at Tora Bora, about overturning the Taliban, and (in the case of Chomsky) about accusing the US of conducting a "silent genocide." Anyway, you can disagree with me about all this-- I see that you do!-- but we should get my actual position, and my words, straight. However odious you find these things.

I don't find these things odious. I think they are notable because they demonstrate one of the causes of the rift between your position and others on the Left. Your response here demonstrates what I mean by doublespeak. The number of clauses on top of one another makes the argument hard to follow. "The antiwar left..." is the subject throughout, but the "but, I believed" in the middle, jumbles things. This use of language, in the original text and this explanation, makes the argument difficult to follow.24.179.47.91 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As for the GRE essay, if you really think it made some kind of contribution to discussion of the profession (though I disagree), then say so on the main page, and explain your rationale. Otherwise this edit just looks disingenuous. Thanks. MB98.235.76.56 (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The contribution to the profession is self-evident. I already explained it already here.24.179.47.91 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Without providing that explanation on the main page, which, again, just looks disingenuous. Because it is. MB98.235.76.56 (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph about the GRE scores as it violates WP:BLPSPS.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have still believe that the paragraph should be removed, but I made a mistake and sinceWP:BLPSELFPUB applies I restored it, I don´t think is relevant for the BLP and given the source I think it should be removed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Regis

It seems to me that Wikipedia has already resolved this question, in a way. The Regis High School page lists 55 “notable alumni,” of which Berube is one. Of those 55 notable alumni, 54 have Wikipedia pages. 13 do not mention Regis; 37 simply mention that the subject “attended” or “graduated from” Regis; three articles call the school “prestigious,” and one notes that it is tuition-free. Two or three also mention that it is a Jesuit school. There are no elaborate “widely recognized as an elite feeder school to top colleges and universities” descriptions in any of the Wikipedia pages of the people listed as notable Regis alumni, and nothing about anybody’s classmates.

As for the argument that a great deal of description is necessary because Berube is an academic: the page for renowned historian John D’Emilio, notable Regis alum, does not mention Regis. UCLA historian Ronald Mellor’s page notes simply that he attended Regis.

Full disclosure from an ip user: I teach at Penn State, but don’t know Berube well, and don’t know anything about his relationship (if any) to his high school. But I Googled “you’re attending an elite, tuition-free high school,” and the phrase comes from a 2009 blog post about Sonia Sotomayor: http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/time_in_a_bottle/ He was recounting a debate with a high school classmate about affirmative action (and noting that Regis does not admit women), but perhaps someone thought he was bragging about the school, and this campaign is some kind of payback?216.169.175.102 (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a lengthy explanation of why wikipedia pages shouldn't be used as sources.98.154.76.40 (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop

It seems that a bunch of IP editors are doing their best to transform this article into a hit piece intended to make Michael Bérubé look bad. To all of you, please read and study WP:BLP in great detail. Read it several times and ponder it at great length. Local "consensus" by people ganging up on the subject here on the talk page does not override BLP policy. Every BLP must be written in a scrupulously neutral fashion. This is not negotiable. Those who are determined to cast aspersions should go elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't assume bad faith on IP editors or anyone. What edit do you feel is "intended to make intended to make Michael Bérubé look bad" and why? Exactly what edit do you feel is not written in a scrupulously neutral fashion? There appears to be a group of registered users ganging up on a people who have made good faith contributions to this page without registering in the system. This labeling of "IP editors are this or that" is bad taste and it's also untrue. And several users have made such comments. Many of the IP editors have experience writing for print encyclopedias including literary encyclopedias that have articles on literary critics, which makes their responses to these attacks quite amusing reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.159.145 (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: NQ talk 12:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No editor, registered or not, gets to claim any special privileges based on unverifiable claims of having written for some other encyclopedias. All editors are judged here strictly according to their contributions here. Adding excessive detail about a high school that a person attended is a bit bizarre. I am not the only experienced editor who feels the same way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No editor did so! I do hope it is ok for a person to find a dialogue between people who have written in literary encyclopedias and random wikipedia editors amusing, because that's what the person said. -August 19th

I empathize with the ip users, however (yes, however is a trigger word) when ip users speak disparingly about a BLP subject, and talk about bringing in outside help, you will raise eyebrows, and your edits will receive extra scrutiny, which is exactly what happened. I'll note two things: That the overstating of Regis was not noticed before but was noticed now was due to this extra scrutiny, had any of us who have removed or spoken against the excess had seen it when it was introduced, it would have been removed then. Secondly, the article for Regis mentions nothing about it being a feeder or "elite" school. Why don't you spend some time improving that article?Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The reasons why the extended description about the high school is necessary have been elaborated ad nauseum already. I would add to the discussion myself but the point has been made very well by others and there are no rebuttals to address about it. The "IP editors are in bad faith" seems to be the argument, which of course isn't true, aside from being prohibited by wikipedia. -August 19th

See Wikipedia:BALASPS. Regis is but a blip.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The BLASPS supports the expanded detail for Regis. The notability of the other two institutions listed is self-evident. If Columbia or UVA had tiny enrollments (so small, like Regis, that very few people were aware of their existence) and they ranked in the top .002% of universities in the nation, this would make them notable for a clause of clarification, just as it does for Regis. This was explained already in the Chevy-bicycle maker example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.225.109 (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at what WP:BALASPS actually says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Now, how much weight is given in reliable sources about Berube to the supposedly elite or feeder nature of the high school? So far, I've seen none put forth. Those claims about the high school were being put forward not only from sources not about Berube, but not even about when Berube was attending the school. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's already been noted that such an argument is a red herring because placement rates did not generally appear until the 1990s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.225.109 (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You prove the point. Because the rates didn't appear until after Berube left Regis, it is not fair to use the modifier. Suppose something negative happened in the 90's to damage the reputation of Regis. It would be unfair to Berube use a modifier for the same reason. We have a BLP policy in place just to prevent that sort of thing from occurring. Of course, none of this has anything to do with balance, which to me is the prime reason for not including the modifiers.Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea of the statemet we cannot know whether it was true making the argument we do not know if it was true a "red herring" is rather strange logic. Even apart from the BALASPS aspect, we do not know plus we cannot know does not add up to we should put it in anyway. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The mention of the schools is unbalanced without the extra clause, yes, and that has already been covered ad nauseum. The red herring is demanding a study about something that wasn't studied, then continuing to bring it up as if it's these studies are the missing piece, despite their lack of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.76.40 (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There is only one way that we can include any extra detail about the high school at all. That would be if a reliable, independent source writes in depth about the unusual influence the school had on him. Combining facts about the school published decades later with the fact he attended the school is the form of original research called synthesis, which goes against policy. Mentioning classmates is absurd, unless reliable sources describe a significant relationship between those people and Bérubé. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

So the idea is that because you blew of the concern that there isn't a source for the information before, it is now a red herring? You've been unable to show through reliable third party sources that the information is either true in a relevant way or relevant in itself; to suggest that it should be included anyway sets a rather low bar for inclusion of information, lower than the verifiability standard that Wikipedia sets for itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a red herring because of the reasons already described above. The classmates issue was closed even before this blocking and circular conversation began. There's no original research or synthesis in directly quoting or paraphrasing from either source. It does not read (or imply) anything about the 1970s. That's an interpretation stretching for something that's not there. Nevertheless, the notability of the school is important to mention, as has been established ad nauseum here. Incidentally, Berube called the place "you're attending [in 1974] an elite, tuition-free Jesuit high school." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.76.40 (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is not intended to imply anthing about the school relevant to the time that the subject attended, then it is quite hard to see the relevancy to the article. That you chose to ignore those concerns in the past does not mean that other editors should ignore them now. The thing that you claim to have established "ad nauseum" here seems to be being rejected by a fair number of editors; might that lead you to believe that it is not as well established as you claim? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Also already established ad nauseum (therefore not necessary to repeat over and over), the scholarly preparation of professors is of particular importance. That this has been covered multiple times and there's a circular game occurring about the same edits doesn't lead me to believe anything except that registered wikipedia editors appear to have issues with edits from those who do not register accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.76.40 (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The notion that objections by experienced accounts is because you or others are unregistered is spurious. I would react precisely the same way if you set up an account. Undue weight and synthesis is wrong, especially when it is clear through hostile language that some of the unregistered accounts have a grudge. Experienced editors will not allow policy violating additions which somehow advance a grudge. It simply won't happen. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is more of the same circle: repetition without argument. Regarding edits that "somehow advance a grudge" - why not note precisely what text you are referring to, explain why you feel it "advances a grudge," and elaborate on how it could be improved. That would be an argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.76.40 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that state that "the scholarly preparation of professors is of particular importance" with respect to Berube?Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain this comment was posted in jest, but it gave me a chuckle.98.154.76.40 (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

And even if they do, do they have a source that says "the acceptance rates of students who attended the same high school decades later is of particular importance" with respect to Berube? Or do you have any arguments grounded in Wikipedia procedures and policies that indicate we should overlook WP:BALASPS and WP:SYNTH in this case? (Oh, wait, those are questions. Let me guess: the response will avoid answering the question, but instead will wave in the phrase "ad nauseum".) --00:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for fun, let's repeat - and see if "ad nauseum" can be included: "UVA and Columbia are very large, well-known institutions. That they are elite is self-evident and characterizing them as such would be redundant. That it's a Jesuit school I guess is notable in a sense, but a much more distinguishing feature is that it is one of a few dozen high schools (of the 25,000+ high schools in the nation) that has been named a "feeder school" for placing graduates into elite universities. That's why it was noted on this professor's page." and this one: "There's no original research or synthesis in directly quoting or paraphrasing from either source. It does not read (or imply) anything about the 1970s. That's an interpretation stretching for something that's not there. Nevertheless, the notability of the school is important to mention, as has been established ad nauseum here." (I left in the "ad nauseum" for fun.)98.154.76.40 (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What a shock, I was right. You offer no reliable sources, you offer nothing grounded in Wikipedia policies or practices. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And please, I ask you once again to "sign" your posts using four tildes in a row ~~~~ as this is the custom around here. Ordinarily an obstinate refusal to sign your posts will cause an admin to eventually block your ip address or account, however since you appear to be using multiple ip addresses (it sure looks like this is the same person using multiple ip's) that a block would do little good, an administrator might prevent this talk page from being edited by ip addresses. If a host asks his guests to remove their shoes upon entering his house, a genteel guest will do so.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This argument is sterile, as you have been told by so many, and Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it explained so clearly, you need to find a reliable source with relevant information about the influence the school had on him. This is an encyclopedia.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Any reflection on the discussion above would be a help. Yes, though, I would say the argument from these two isn't so sterile as repetitive. 98.154.76.40 (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Absent of new sources and/or arguments being put forward, I'm fairly confident in saying that none of the non-ip users here will change their position. I doubt the ip user (I assume it is just one person at this point) is willing to reconsider. Despite having a numerical advantage, the non-ip editors who have argued against embellishment of Regis have done so and cited Wikipedia policy and best practices to support their position. The ip user has cited their opinion. At some point this is becoming a WP:IDHT argument. Is there anything that could be done that would satisfy the ip user? Would bringing in some random editors to express their opinion satisfy you? Either way, this back and forth needs to stop.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I like this post above. It appears to be, indeed, an attempt to build consensus: "Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process that seeks the consent of all participants." The policy arguments against inclusion are weak; there is a general lack of response (save those that appear to be in jest) to the series of explanations that have been offered in rebuttal. The text in question had been seriously modified already, from mention of tuition, Jesuit, location in Manhattan, and other people who graduated with Berube, down to "widely recognized as en elite feeder school" or something similar to that. So, what's on the table? How might that clause be modified toward a consensus? 98.154.76.40 (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It is simply your opinion that the policy arguments are weak. Pretty much everyone else that has cared to comment (here or via editing) thinks otherwise. Either it's a vast anti-Regis conspiracy, or maybe, just maybe you are wrong. It's true that you could be correct and everyone else wrong, but I find that highly unlikely, for the obvious reason your level of experience with Wikipedia is dwarfed by everyone else's.

I would offer my consent to another wording that recognizes the nature of Regis, yes. The argument against inclusion is weak because: "There's no original research or synthesis in directly quoting or paraphrasing from either source. It does not read (or imply) anything about the 1970s. That's an interpretation stretching for something that's not there." Anyway consensus is not described as one group of people with the "correct" version and another group who's supposedly "wrong" - but "Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process that seeks the consent of all participants." - So the task is to find another wording that seeks the consent of the participants. So, what's on the table? how might that clause be modified toward a consensus?98.154.76.40 (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would we want something in the article about the current nature of Regis that doesn't apply to the 1970s? Does the subject have some vital, extended relationship to Regis beyond having attended it in the 1970s? If you can find reliable third-party sources discussing the nature of Regis in relation to the subject of this article, then please put that forward; under WP:BALASPS, that's what we're looking for. Barring finding that, I see no reason for expansion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok ip, we are done here. If you want to further this conversation, I suggest you look into filing a RfC. I will even help you star one, provided you sign up for an account or stick to the same IP address. Otherwise, ask the Helpdesk or Teahouse on how to do this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Material Part II

Test. The system will not let new text be posted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.104.53.42 (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now it works. The large removal of material from the last day should be undone. It does not demonstrate respect for the discussion here about the topic. This includes: expanded high school description, Iraq war book and the English test. There is too much conflict of interest with the professor here. He should not be commenting or editing about himself, and the editors should follow the guidelines for consensus here rather than capitulating to the professors version of the article, which is in a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.104.53.42 (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am moving this from the other page: the present version of the article does not respect the discussion on the talk page in any way. It just capitulates to what the professor wants. It should be a community activity that takes into account others' opinions. The present page (Aug 18) doesn't do that.175.104.53.42 (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hiyaa Mikey et al! Wow, this has picked up steam! Tough times for you, huh, Mike?! Sorry to see you had to run to tattle tale with the administrators...and that the administrators have been trying to control the public opinion. It's a shame to see these adminsplaning going on, which is the same as adminsplaining anywhere offline, as the talk here has been interesting and I think had improved the article. I guess Berube has always been one to run to the system and cower. In reality I couldn't care less really about his page. I am just glad that he seems to have stopped trolling and bullying Schuman and others, so this is a nice testament to collective confrontation of bullies. FOS24.143.224.240 (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I heard this page blew up, but this is amazing. "Mikey"? "Tattle tale"? This reads like it was written in crayon with backwards Rs. And this is really what graduate students were doing over the summer? No wonder the humanities are in such rotten shape.75.149.20.17 (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice try Mikey. I am sure it is just a coincidence that you were in Pittsburgh on Sept 12 when the above comment appeared http://www.english.pitt.edu/e-news/8-29-14 and http://www.duq.edu/academics/schools/liberal-arts/academic-departments-of-liberal-arts/english/faculty-and-staff ...as if someone would defend the king troll Berube. And you "generally" don't sockpuppett. By the way, I am not a grad student. And most of the people who have posted here aren't either. Sorry.69.181.136.33 (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael was in Pittsburgh in September. So was I. I was at the party where Michael talked about his cyberstalkers. He mentioned the “tattletale” comment, and there was much incredulous laughter, so I decided to check out this page and chime in. But I am surprised that Michael actually replied to his stalkers. The obsessiveness on display here is truly disturbing, and I can’t imagine what he thought he would accomplish by dealing with lunatics. 64.134.228.123 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure you were in Pittsburgh, Michael. I suppose it’s not a sockpuppet if one uses "I" and then refers to oneself in the third person? Or is it “generally” not sockpupetting? At any rate, if he had any sense Bérubé wouldn’t bring up his adolescent online behavior, ever. I am sure he’s embarrassed enough at about it as it is. Look how closely he stalks this page and the people who have posted on it. And it makes no sense that "he mentioned the tattletale comment" at a party. As if people he would dine with might know about this page. None of his friends are on the other forum so it makes no sense. But like most of his ad hominem attacks, it's not meant to make sense.75.165.104.46 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Pittsburgh conversation was about forms of Internet aggression, Twitter rages, etc. Somebody asked Michael about his experiences as a blogger, and he said that nothing in the blogosphere was half so bizarre as having your Wikipedia page vandalized by a pack of flying monkeys. So my interest was piqued. I work in DH, I am writing about Wikipedia, and I come by here and some other lit professors’ talk pages (Cathy Davidson, Stanley Fish, etc.) to check on the results of edit wars. Cathy’s page is stalked by the usual Duke lacrosse nutbars; the troll infestation here was much weirder, almost as if people thought Wikipedia was their secret private playspace and got angry when Michael “tattletaled.”63.88.116.178 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A note to Regis High School students and alumni: First and foremost, welcome! We value your input. Second, please "sign" every post you make to talk pages (like this one) by using for tildes in a row like so ~~~~

Now that that is out of the way, please realize that wikipedia is edited via consensus, but its not a consensus of opinion on how an article should be appear, but a consensus on how an article conforms to wikipedia editing practices. So you simply can't get a bunch of people from your facebook group to come to the article and say "I like it this way" and expect that to fly. You would have to say "the article should be written this way because it conforms to policy and style guidelines". Unless you are experienced, this might be a bit daunting, but we are here to help you. So ask questions, but be nice and you will be treated nicely in return. Please consider creating an account; unfortunately "ip accounts" get a bad rap around here (thats just my opinion), so it might make your life easier. And once again, welcome! Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and wikipedia editing practices do not allow blanking of material that has been discussed and nuanced already, and has some semblance of consensus, without any explanation thereof on the talk page--even if the people doing the deletion are administrators. Some people feel it necessary to comment on facebook and not here because Berube has a record of attacking and bullying people, and has already done so on this talk page (but that mysteriously has disappeared as well) and some people, like me, don't want to register for any more things online. Posting without an account doesn't invalidate anyone's opinion. You simply can't get a bunch of admins to come to the article and say "I like it this way" and expect that to fly, either, especially when the people who are discussing it are professors and academics, all of whom are commenting in what is called good faith. 50.159.116.221 (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

PS: To my knowledge, no one who has commented here or on facebook (except Berube) has an affiliation with Regis.50.159.116.221 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment indicates that some sort of off-wikipedia grudge may be the driving force behind some of these edits. This is certain to make editors who take an interest in biographies to provide extra scrutiny to this article. I think some editors here are concerned that Regis is being inappropriately "puffed" up. Remember, this article is about Berube, and not Regis. Also, good faith is a two way street. You should assume that the editors who oppose the alleged puffery are doing so for valid reasons. If you don't understand, read the policies they site and ask questions. And finally, we don't care if editors are academics or have PhD's. Anyone can edit wikipedia. There is no caste system of editing. Nobel prize winners and grave-diggers both put their pants on one leg at a time, and both of them are judged here solely on the edits they make.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Read the comments on the talk page again. It doesn’t have to do with “puffing” anything but describing the nature of his educational background. Many have expressed that the extra details are important because he is an academic. You should assume that the people who are editing here are doing so for valid reasons. If you don’t understand my explanation, read the several others above. Ask questions of editors instead of assuming grudges and therefore bad faith. Berube also apparently has a grudge against whoever is editing here, which is widely documented in the level of emotion in his comments that were removed from this talk page, but I assume that his edits are in good faith. I just don't agree with him because I know how important high school is (especially at an elite school) in a person's academic preparation. 50.159.116.221 (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well here's where people think there is a conflict of interest on the part of the ip editors; They appear to be more interested in effusing the status of Regis than improving the Berube article. The last time I checked, Columbia and UVA were highly prestigious schools, and they aren't describe as "elite". Your opinion on how important a high school is really doesn't matter. We don't use the opinions of editors to write articles. We use reliable sources to gather information about a subject, then we paraphrase what the source says in a neutral manner. Now if you have an article about Berube attending Regis, and that article makes note that Regis was a contributing factor to his academic success, then Regis might merit more than the current passing mention it already has in the article. I hate to ask this, but do you have some sort of relationship with Berube or Regis? Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No relationship to either whatsoever. Never met or communicated with Berube, and I had not heard of Regis until I read the argument here on wikipedia. "We use reliable sources to gather information about a subject, then we paraphrase what the source says in a neutral manner." This is exactly what was occurring until about 24 hours ago. The comments in question had already been sourced (two references) and the paraphrase had been tweaked four or five times, merging different opinions into whatever was there when all this blocking started. Then both references disappeared and the page was closed to edits. UVA and Columbia are very large, well-known institutions. That they are elite is self-evident and characterizing them as such would be redundant. Regis, on the other hand, is an institution with a tiny enrollment -- I'd never heard of it -- and there are several other "Regis" high schools around the country. That it's a Jesuit school I guess is notable in a sense, but a much more distinguishing feature is that it is one of a few dozen high schools (of the 25,000+ high schools in the nation) that has been named a "feeder school" for placing graduates into elite universities. That's why it was noted on this professor's page. 50.159.116.221 (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You didn't have a reliable source connecting the eliteness of the school to the topic of the article, nor even one that indicated that it was an elite school while he attended (your references came from decades after he attended.) As such, it wasn't so much paraphrasing sources about the subject, but trying to put in information that other sources did not find worthy of attention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This comment stretches the intention of the reference. Placement rates were not regularly published before the 1990s, so it's a red herring to demand them in such a case. The exact words in one of the sources are "wide recognized as a feeder school..." so the "paraphrase" in that part of the edit could, perhaps should, have been actually paraphrased instead of directly quoted. The intention is to note that the institution is notable for more than being a Jesuit institution - and the present version fails on that end.50.159.116.221 (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The big problem is the description of Regis was quite promotional using loaded terms and at one point included name-dropping. This goes against a core policy that articles are written from a neutral point of view. One editor speculated that because Berube is an academic, it is paramount to let the readers know the status of this high school. I disagree. If the reader wants to learn more about the school, they can click on the link. Do we have any sources stating that the impact Regis had on Berube's academic career? If we do, then we can start talking more about Regis. But not too much. We have to consider how much weight each "fact" is given in every article. "Berube went to Regis, the premier yada yada yada. He also went to Columbia and UVA", that is unbalanced.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I addressed this in my comment above. Comparing Columbia and Regis High School isn't like comparing Ford and Chevy but rather Chevy and a small bicycle manufacturer that puts out a few units per year. The latter requires more detail because it's not well known.50.159.116.221 (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a conflict of interest that Berube has been pushing certain versions of the page. I think new reviews here from Pork and Gertler are interesting but there's nothing to indicate that the removed material is anything but the consensus. It's very middle of the road stuff as well, nothing that is a point of view issue or promoting some idea that the sources don't represent. The references do not intend nor achieve what is implied in those interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.62.227 (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Conflict Of Interest guidelines actually recommends that those with conflicts of interest take matters to the talk page and noticeboard, as the article's subject has been doing. The claim that you have consensus even in a strong-preponderance-of-raw-vote form (which is not the central measure of WP:CONSENSUS) overlooks the fact that you have not just Pork and I making Wikipedia practice-grounded statements against inclusion, but also one or more IP editors arguing against inclusion, and at least two other experienced editors removing the material from the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Aside from the people upset that Michael Berube has trolled Rebecca Schuman, MB received a great deal of criticism due to his support of a George W. Bush military invasion, his attacks on the antiwar Left, his support for the invasion Libya, and his failure to address the underlying problems with the culture of sports at Penn State during the Sanduscky scandal, and so on and so on. These should be brought into the page with a criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.88.219 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Regis High School

I am here to say I agree that the type of elite high school Bérubé attended should be made clear in the wikipedia article. -OLV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.180.176 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So do I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.204.174 (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I do as well, and whoever is trying to protect Berube's page by reverting all the edits about this topic should stop. ~Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.90.151 (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that the mention of the elite ranking of his high school is important because it establishes the level of education he received. ~~

The ranking of the high school should be in the wikipedia article. -editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.88.36 (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Berube's opinion is a conflict of interest and irrelevant except for cases of blatant vandalism. This entire dialogue is a waste of time. The consensus about the high school is clear (which is: because he is an academic, the rank of the school is important to note).50.159.116.221 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone seems determined to add material about Regis High School to this page, insisting that it is a "feeder school" of some kind (the term "feeder school" is hyperlinked, but the link goes nowhere). While it is true that Regis High School sends many graduates to elite universities, (a) it is a tuition-free Jesuit institution, admission to which is determined by a competitive examination in the greater New York area, so the claim that someone simply "enrolled" in Regis and was thereby admitted to elite universities is highly misleading, and (b) seriously, who cares where this guy went to high school in the first place? And who cares who his classmates were?

Regis is described as a Feeder School on its wikipedia page and in many newspaper/magazine articles and the like. It's a prestigious high school. His academic preparation is important because he is a professor. The information about the other graduates adds context about the type of classmates he had. The links are often left in red for future articles to be written on those topics.

Regis is not described as Feeder School on its wikipedia page, but this entry should acknowledge that Berube attended the school.

It is a Feeder School, and it's been linked to two references.

A "feeder school" is "a school or college, many of whose graduates continue their education at another specific school or college, or enter a specific profession." https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feeder_school

Saying that Regis is a Feeder school doesn't mean or imply that people who go there are automatically admitted to an elite university. It just means that the school sends a lot of their grads to elite colleges. Its status as a feeder makes it unique and different than some average high school that rarely has grads go to the ivy leagues. The professor's high school being mentioned as "a feeder school" is key because it means he went to a good school. Leaving out that detail makes it sound like he went to some average place, which Regis is certainly not as it's very hard to get into.67.81.60.208 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry on Regis High School makes it clear what kind of school it is. There is no need to elaborate on it here, any more than there is a need to explain in detail what kind of institutions Columbia, Virginia, Illinois, and Penn State are.

Should be no shame in having attended a feeder school, Professor. It is what it is. The fact hat are so few of them in the country means that it's notable to mention. The universities are known in themselves, but Regis is not, which is why it merits more detail.

Even though most Wikipedia entries on professors don't mention their high schools, if someone really really really wants a lot of material about Regis High School on my page, so be it. It was an important part of my life once, involving academically rigorous courses as well as three hours of commuting and three hours of homework every day, and it shaped part of my adolescence even though I am not and never have been a practicing Catholic. Honestly, my only regret about Regis is that it was, and remains, closed to women.

That said, the problem with the "Feeder School" reference is that the first item in the reference section is this: "Yacub, Rashma (September 2002). 'Getting inside the Ivy Gates'. Worth Magazine 26: 94-104." It doesn't go to any online source, which makes it "poorly sourced" by Wikipedia standards. And surely the character of Regis, as an academically rigorous high school, is already established sufficiently on this page? So I am removing that poorly sourced clause. Again, anyone who really really really wants more information on Regis can click the hyperlink. --MB

"Inside the Ivy Gates" is here: http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/edu-eliteschools.htm Don't know what the obsession is about avoid the term "Feeder School" or trying to imagine Regis is something other than that, but its discussion has provided some interesting flailing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.47.91 (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what is going on here. I remember where I first heard the term "feeder school"-- it was in a Chronicle of Higher Education comment thread, where it was being used to characterize me and one of my friends as "private school brats." That commenter posts at the CHE under various names, and now works at a private college himself.

Anyway, I checked the pages of Pat Fitzgerald and Lou Dibella. No mention of feeders-- indeed, no mention of Regis on Dibella's page. But I'll tell you what-- since you've provided the link (to an essay about expensive private schools), you can have your way. But the term looks weird capitalized, so I'll de-cap it for you. I hope now you can move on with the rest of your life. --MB68.175.7.105 (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.7.105 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The second concern involves misstatements of fact regarding Berube's opinion pieces on the Iraq war, which attempt to cast Berube as a supporter of a war he opposed. Whoever added that material also added hyperlinks that go nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.76.56 (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

An edit now says that he apparently opposed the Iraq war. (Couldn't find anything of his against the war in print before the invasion.) Apparently he was part of the antiwar left and railed against the antiwar left? I guess. All the links work.

The Left At War answers this question. As does this: http://crookedtimber.org/2007/03/26/how-do-i-sleep/ The link to the journal "Politics and Culture" did not work.

The links work for me. They're not all formatted correctly but they work. The Crooked Timber link is from 2007. The war began in 2003. Anything before then about it?

There is this, but I don't know whether it is behind a paywall: http://chronicle.com/article/Toward-an-Ideal-Antiwar/35024. --MB

It says on the page that is linked from that article that he went to a war rally before the war started. He was against the war from the start.67.81.60.208 (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

August 8, 2014: Saying Regis is "a tuition-free Jesuit institution in Manhattan" fails to characterize the school as one of the top in the nation, which it is. There are 25,000 or so high schools in the US, and only about 100 of them are considered "Feeder Schools." That this professor went to "a Jesuit School" is notable, as there are 7 or 8 thousand of them in the nation, but it's more notable that Regis is one of a tiny percentage of high schools that can be considered a "feeder" - and that's why it's in the article.

Much of this material reads as if it were written by the president of the Regis High School Booster Club. It’s nice to learn that this high school is such an impressive institution, and perhaps more people need to know about it. But this is not the place for a Regis High School promotional campaign.143.104.241.66 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As the sources used to establish the feeder school claims do not discuss the subject of this article, the information is WP:OFFTOPIC; presenting it here is trying to claim some important relevance to this topic that we do not have sources to support. And on top of that, the sources are discussing the state of the school decades after the subject left it. There's no reasonable way to or need to link these articles in. As such, I'm removing the off-topic material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The high school paragraph could be further nuanced, yes, but the information is notable as has been discussed here already by many others. He's an academic and so the nature of the scholarly background is very important, especially because the high school is in such an elite cohort of institutions. It could be better referenced.

I don't see any sign that it has been supported by any others; I see a string of unsigned claims from IPs, all of which could be the same user. I don't see any consensus achieved for inclusion, and quite the opposite is occuring at WP:BLPN. I don't see any basis in Wikipedia policy for including this information in an article about this individual when no other source does. This is not an ad page for Regis High School. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Because someone doesn't have a wikipedia account doesn't make their opinions invalid. There's a facebook discussion about this page that is getting a TON of attention, mainly because of how Berube has been attacking people online and here on this talk page. I don't know what a BLPN is.

If we have no reason to believe these are unique editors, there is no reason to treat them as though they were. Any supposed Facebook discussions are irrelevant to our editing practices. It is clear from the discussion here that there isn't WP:CONSENSUS to include it - I suggest you click that link to gain an understanding of how consensus works on Wikipedia. And if you want to know what WP:BLPN is, click that link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's even more material for the machine! Man. Poor Berube. Anyway, there's certainly no consensus to take those edits out, either. So, I'm going to nuance the part about the other grads, which isn't as important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.229.151 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what is more interesting here: Berube's attempts to conceal that he attended an elite and ivy-feeder high school by way of conflict-of-interest edits on his wikipedia page, or the strange frat party going on about this edit. The only arguments resembling a form of WP consensus are in favor of the term "feeder" or something similar, exactly as it appears in the references.173.12.0.76 (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the very fact that three different editors have undone this in the course of half a day is itself a sign of failed consensus for inclusion. Given that you don't actually have a source that indicates that he attended a feeder school at the time, and given that you don't have sources that talk about the subject in relation to this supposed feeder school status, you're failing to meet various Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the very fact that three different editors have undone this in the course of half a day without discussion is a sign that there is a frat party going on. Given that your edit appears to demand a citation from a type of study that did not exist at the time (scrutiny on feeder schools began with the move toward diversity in the 1990s) is just more frat partying. Why not provide a source indicating Regis was a lower level school and that its relations with elite universities improved drastically in a very short time, which is an argument that might make sense. But if not, just keep on with the wikiwarrior frat party stuff.173.12.0.76 (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331100824/http://www.theminnesotareview.org/journal/ns67/interview_berube.shtml to http://www.theminnesotareview.org/journal/ns67/interview_berube.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)