Talk:Thomas Jefferson Education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeschooling, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeschoolingWikipedia:WikiProject HomeschoolingTemplate:WikiProject HomeschoolingHomeschooling articles

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archived talk: 1 |

Undo Edits

I undid edits by user Ibinthinkin which removed the criticism section. This should be discussed in this forum prior to removing entire sections. Trms (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, BLP removals are immediate, without discussion, and must be replaced only with consensus. And the standard of using bloggers as sources has been established as unacceptable according to WP policy. No need for further discussion here on this point, either. I cited both of these reasons with the edit, and redo the edit now. Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a BLP. Re-adding. --TrustTruth (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if the article discusses living people, it is absolutely well-established policy that such parts be treated as BLPs, we do not stand of technicalities with BLP policy. The question is to what extent the criticism is of individual people. However this section does seems possible as written, except that the authority of Julie Smith needs to be established. T&S is, after all, a blog, and its reliability depends on that of the individual authors. Is there no criticism or discussion of TJER in mainstream education published literature? DGG (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, benign is not the term intended, it has a totally positive meaning, beneficial or non-harmful: Jesus' teaching could certainly be described as "benign" , I think the term wanted is "bland" or "unspecific" DGG (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we discuss the authority of Julie Smith, the BLP protection should prevail. Removed criticisms section. I invite the editor to find other criticisms by respected authorities on homeschool. Smith's comment that "it may be illegal in some states" is an inflammatory extrapolation of and spin on the varying laws regarding parents' rights and alternative education in general. In some states homeschooling is illegal--TJEd not more nor less so than any other style or system. The quote is misleading and non-factual, as represented. Not encyclopedic, by any standards. This article should contain criticisms that are notable and authoritative, not just any old tomato throwing available on the web. Ibinthinkin (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading it again I conclude that it is not a violation of BLP. We can criticize a book or a product without running afoul of BLP. It should however be rewritten more objectively. Ibinthinking, are you aware of any published criticism? DGG (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the Ibinthinkin removal of the "criticism" section so it can be edited from what it is. It just makes it easier so that the references can be preserved. I have searched all peer reviewed literature for anything on TJED, and I don't find anything. I know of one criticism, but it has already proved difficult to place on wikipedia because it was in an evangelical Christian newsletter.Trms (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I just reviewed the article by Smith, and did find it to be biased, but not necessarily BLP. The forum discussion had quite a few howlers, and was full of hearsay. I think I hadn't looked at it in forever and was only remembering the forum discussion. The survey of DeMille's comments regarding TJEd was quite interesting; one has to work pretty hard to come up with such a narrow representation of his views. He apparently sucked at live interviews. But the comments to ML which were made in the 1990's (before the books were even published!) are perhaps historically interesting, but not an accurate representation of what he teaches and writes about TJEd.

So my point is, this blogger did some interesting original research (and there's no reason why she shouldn't) about DeMille, but it represents a small minority viewpoint. She's gone to ancient interviews and obscure recordings rather than creating a scholarly review of the thing. She's not a recognized authority on education. And--it's a blog, not a hugely influential homeschool or education blog. Just a general-purpose blog, written to a minority audience. So again, I challenge the appropriateness of using her as a source here.

As for the use of the Stephen Palmer part--remind me again: why are we quoting bloggers? Ibinthinkin (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I didn't answer DGG's question regarding critique of TJEd. DeMille's TJEd site quotes some influential homeschool people: Rebecca Kochenderfer, owner of www.homeschool.com, the largest homeschool site on the web (they claim over 3.5 million hits per year, and have been awarded Forbes Top 45 and Encyclopedia Britannica Web's Best for 2009); Andrew Pudewa, owner of the Institute for Excellence in Writing, who lectures on and promotes TJEd in his speeches and catalog. Pudewa received awards from Practical Homeschooling (1999-2008--ten consecutive years), Old Schoolhouse Magazine Excellence in Education (2006, 2007, 2008), Cathy Duffy's 100 Top Picks for Homeschool, Homeschooling Parent Stamp of Approval 2009.

Just today Weird, Unsocialized Homeschoolers (a 100 Top Homeschool Blogs winner) featured a TJEd family: http://www.weirdunsocializedhomeschoolers.com/2009/06/homeschool-showcase-25.html.

I maintain that this Smith thing is a fringe minority viewpoint based on poor, probably biased research (she is a liberal Mormon who objects to what she thinks are DeMille's politics). This article--if it is to include reviews from people who actually review and promote homeschool curriculum professionally--should have a very different "Criticisms" section to accurately represent proportional views, as is the WP policy. Ibinthinkin (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation

Okay, as per previous discussions here, I've started the revision to take this from being an article about a book to being an article about an educational philosophy/methodology. I think it should redirect from the three major book titles as well as "TJEd" and "Leadership Education", and that the title of this article should be changed from "A Thomas Jefferson Education" to "Thomas Jefferson Education". I don't know how to do that. Anybody?

I'll do a little more, according to the outline previously discussed on the talk page. Feel free to dip your oars in.... Ibinthinkin (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still there?

I maintain that the use of bloggers who are not recognized authorities of note in the field on which they blog should not be used as sources for commentary on the subject^[1]. Neither Julie Smith nor Stephen Palmer (who is called, for some unspecified reason, a "TJEd Blogger") is a notable authority on education in general or homeschool in specific. I have shown several notable sources for comments on TJEd. I do not propose we include them in the article--only that we acknowledge that no authoritative criticism on the subject of this article exists, and as such a section on commentary about TJEd is not only extraneous, but inappropriate. Unless somebody weighs in on this to the contrary, I'm planning to remove the criticisms section. Ibinthinkin (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sources#Sources

Page history

This article is a merger with "A Thomas Jefferson Education". Discussion history prior to merger is available here[1].

- Now in the previous sections. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Improving This Article

1. Need redirects for the book titles that are the texts of tjed, as well as "TJEd" and "Leadership Education".

2. Need a section of the main TJEd titles, with a very brief description of them.

3. Need a section noting the scope of influence of the philosophy, including the variations and spinoffs (not an advertisement, but a generic description of the popular forms), and geography/demographic of practitioners. Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find book reviews, that would also be good. Wrad (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggestions above, Ibinthinkin. Right now, the article gives little information. It would especially be useful to have the third suggestion implemented. --Truecolors (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←This article reads like an ad and needs more non-DeMille sources for support. (Majority of article currently references two primary sources! Which, by the way, need to be consolidated per book formatting guidelines.) I've converted lists to prose and removed extraneous bandwagon information to help the article gain some integrity. It also needs to be more than a plagiarism of the sources. What is the history of TJEd? How has it been received by the academic community? What are its criticisms and praises? What is the link to Thomas Jefferson? —Eustress ^talk 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree third party sources would greatly increase the quality of the article. That being said: if the article does not describe the basics of TJEd (and that should be from the primary source), then it has no point in existing. If we reduce it to a report of the commentary about it without every saying authoritatively what it is (with cited sources), we miss the point.

I like the changes to the Five Pillar section. I only took what was already put in place by another editor and made some improvements, but I think changing it to prose makes it read less like a promotional flyer and more like a WP article.

Question, all you editors: The recent transformation I undertook, based on talk page discussion, was intended to take the emphasis off a book and rather to articulate the philosophy/methodology, with the books being briefly described, but not the subject of the article. Is everyone on board with that characterization of our intent with this article? Do we need to back up from the current agenda? I did think I was acting in accord with our discussion, but it is certainly not my intent to take ownership here.

I'm hoping others will start contributing content, hint-hint. I'm glad people can improve on what I'm doing, but I'd be gladder to be the one doing the minor edits, if you know what I mean. Specifically: we've had several calls for book reviews. Is that still what we want to do, assuming the shift to emphasis on the philosophy/methodology stands? If so, then we need to proceed with number 2 above, and get third-party commentary from sources that review homeschool/educational resources. I'll eventually get around to it, if no one else steps up. Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think book reviews are less important than critiques of the TJEd system as a whole. And besides, this article deals with TJEd as a "philosophy and methodology of education," not as any one book. —Eustress ^talk 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undo

I believe the reintroduction of the Criticisms section without discussion is inappropriate. The reasons for its removal were previously cited and undisputed here. The blog reflects an extreme minority view of TJEd. The source cited is (as noted previously) not an authority on education, not an acknowledged or notable go-to source for homeschool reviews, and cites as a primary source of her criticism against DeMille impromptu comments in a live interview that predated the TJEd books by several years. Not accurate, reliable, notable or credible. I think this article desperately needs third-party reviews of the TJEd content; this one just doesn't cut the WP muster. Somebody--anybody? Isn't there an actual book review on this that appears on a credible homeschool site? Ibinthinkin (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classics

Probably a section on Classics is merited, but the content provided (which I just removed) was not TJEd-related, but a reference made by DeMille to the book, "The Healing Power of Stories" by Daniel Taylor. The author apparently deemed it to be helpful/relevant to his readers, but it's not his work, or specifically TJEd, in my opinion. Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

I took out a couple of quotes that had no relation to the subject matter of the section where they appeared. Ibinthinkin (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I took out the tag for sources. It sort of didn't make sense. The info in this article is just a report of what's in the books, right? the 3rd party thing makes sense when you're looking to verify what people say or think about a subject, but when you're just saying what it is, the primary source is the logical citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.127.16.67 (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sources#Sources

[1]