Talk:Eva Moskowitz/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Keep neutral (not POV) & support any criticism, especially in BLP

There seems a sudden desire to attack Eva Moskowitz. Wikipedia is not a point-of-view ranting platform. It is neutral. Biographies of living people, especially, are under stricter WP standards. Among other points, the following is inadequately supported (the cited source is good but the specifics need clarification if they're to be in this WP article in their present forms): ". . . Moskowitz has privileged access to NYC School Chancellor John Klein, resulting in special support bestowed to her program. Email communication with Klein showed how she secured with his help a $1 million donation, resolved in her favor disputes with Klein's subordinates, acquired more space for her charter schools from other public schools, and changed the district's privacy policy to garner from the district more mailing lists as a means to recruit for her schools." Her schools have very high achievements; why should anyone criticize Joel Klein for helping it continue to achieve? What was the nature of his help for the donation, perhaps a good word and if that's all why's that a nontrivial criticism? What disputes should have been resolved the other way? If other schools are failing, students will go elsewhere; doesn't HSA's expansion mean that students are getting classroom space in schools that are succeeding for them and that are near their homes? I thought the mailing lists were going directly to a mailing preparation service although I could be wrong about that, but if so then only interested parents are contacting her, in which case what's the privacy issue? And shouldn't charter schools be free to contact noncharter public schools' families to offer their educational services, precisely because the students and parents should be able to choose the best schools and since charter schools here, at least HSA, don't charge tuition? Also among other points: Most educational institutions are led by people whose primary job is to raise money and other resources; Chancellor Klein has to pitch the Mayor and the City Council and a university president has to pitch major donors, and CEO Moskowitz is in the same position, so isn't it her duty to ask? If Harlem Success's expansion is "too" rapid, do you mean HSA is harming some of its students and, if so, who and how? If she is being more politician than educator, isn't that why principals were hired at HSA, wouldn't any school CEO in this city have to use political skills to do right by their students, and is there any particular method or amount of time she's using that she shouldn't be?

For some of these, at least, good support would be to give the other point of view reflected in published sources. In some of these cases, at least, those would be already-cited sources, so simply adding counterpoint might suffice.

If you edited the article recently, please support it where it's weak; if you didn't but would like to, go right ahead; otherwise, I plan to edit.

Some criticisms can be leveled at all charter schools, so I'd like to know why Eva Moskowitz' schools in particular are being singled out here. We don't propose that Harvard and Columbia Universities be shut down on the ground that they're taking students away from community colleges. I would agree public noncharter schools need more resources on a per-student basis but the reason charters are succeeding in low-income districts is that public noncharter schools have failed there for decades. I imagine many of the students and parents from public noncharter schools who are objecting to charters are the ones likelier to be doing well in the public noncharters and likelier to experience graduations, but when graduation rates hover around 50% someone's not graduating and maybe some of the problems are systemic. The nation has had a problem with anyone Black getting a good education, some of the nation has had a problem with anyone from any other sociological minority getting a solid education, and the history is very well known. It includes this city, where a few decades ago the teachers' union went on three strikes totaling most of a school term, not for money (they got that early) but to keep control in central White hands. Before there were charters here, I was involved with a private school that attracted students who had been truant for months in a row. It was free and we engaged their interests. They clearly knew how to stay away so the fact that they showed up for us meant that they wanted to.

If you wish to criticize charters in general, create or add to an article on charter schools generally, or New York charter schools, and do the research to support the criticisms with citations for WP.

Thank you.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC) One correction and one additional point in invitation to support: Nick Levinson (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In my view, this article is a difficult one to write and will inevitably have NPOV issues. I do agree with Nick Levinson that the information regarding the Klein and Moskowitz emails might be inappropriate for an encylopedia and constitute primary research. That said, I think it is within the protocol of BLP to include the controversies associated with the charter schools run by Eva Moskowitz. These controversies are not slanderous or libelous, and from what I can tell, are embraced by Ms. Moskowitz herself in her life work. What makes Ms. Moskowitz' case different than other leaders of charter schools is her high standing in NYC and the leadership role she has taken on this issue. There isn't a reason why Moskowitz' BLP can't reflect, in a reasonable and respectful manner, the controversies generated by career. As the article originally stood, I would argue that there was a point of view bias hyping the schools she has created. I agree with Nick Levinson that this is not the place to argue on the merits and demerits of charter schools. But given the complexity of NCLB and testing, simple statements regarding high test scores, although seemingly factual, contain inherent biases. Although I imagine that her schools aren't involved overtly in cherry-picking students, my own experience in teaching has demonstrated how students with more stable socioeconomic backgrounds will gravitate toward charters and magnets, thereby creating hamlets where test scores will be high. Meanwhile, as the students with higher ability leave traditional public schools without lottery (or PR hype), test scores go down in the traditional school, more students leave, funding declines, test scores go down, in a continuing downward spiral. I don't mean to suggest that the traditional system has benefited all the students and that there shouldn't be reform. However, given how irrational the testing regime plays out under NCLB (which in many urban contexts does not succesfully delineate between good and bad schools), a simple reporting of test scores is inherently biased.

I would imagine that there is a way to edit the section in an unbiased manner.Corey (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If a controversy were specific to Eva beyond her being the CEO, for example, if the controversy were about whether a former elected official should be running a school, that would fit her page as well as the school page. Since the controversies around HSA are mainly about the schools she runs, albeit varying by how each CEO might run them, and HSA has its own article, most of that content should be in the HSA article. That simplifies future editorial maintenance. Her article should have only a relatively short reference to HSA and a link to the HSA page, and those are already there.
On test score bias, I think you're saying that who goes to charters results in scores being higher there. Given that these students start out with more than the average in disadvantages, I assume you're referring to higher motivation and support on the part of students and their teachers and families. If so, I agree, but I don't think that's a problem. If we shut the charters, I don't think the motivated students mingling with everyone else would bring everyone else up; instead, the higher motivation levels would go down to average.
I agree on the downward spiral in public schools. Functionally segregated housing has also resulted in some schools being denied resources other schools receive abundantly. But I don't think we can require charters or private schools to stop being selective of students or I don't think there'll be reason for charter or private schools, in which case there'll be no challenges for students who do want a more focused atmosphere for their education but who can't afford private schools' tuitions. The segregation and its result are political problems. Electing community school boards in this city seems to have failed and those boards no longer exist or are no longer elected. So now the charters are out there and being run by different people, and, as one of the critics said, if the children do well, the proof will be in the pudding.
I assume NCLB controversies should be in a NCLB-centric article. As far as I know, nothing about HSA or Dr. Moskowitz is distinct on NCLB.
Some of the criticisms carry the risk that endless repetition may give them more credibility than is justified by known grounds. If they are significant, they should be reported.
There was rather much on the schools in her article in the past. When I started the HSA article, I moved some of the school content out of her article and onto the school page. The recent attacks about the schools started in her article's elections section, which made the intent somewhat obvious. I was glad that at least that got fixed.
I'll keep thinking about this. Thanks.
Nick Levinson (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
High school graduation is now 63% or 68% (depending on methodology) across all NYC public high schools and not just some of them, and the Mayor is lauding this because it's the best in years. NYC press release PR- 103-10 dated & as accessed Mar. 9, 2010. The Mayor may be entitled to that relative position but, apart from that, I think that's awful.
A high-salary story turns out to include several charter CEOs and no figures are available for some other charters. Charter school executives earning big bucks education [sic] city's poorer students, by Meredith Kolodner and Rachel Monahan, in N.Y. Daily News (perhaps online only), Dec. 13, 2009 (date implied from URL and earliest of 7 comments appearing on URL page), as accessed Mar. 10, 2010. It's an issue, but not for Eva exclusively, unless it contradicts something she said, and, to my knowledge, it doesn't. The issue, such as it is, is the argument that lowering the salary would leave more money for teachers, but Eva's schools pay over union scale for teachers, as do some other charters, maybe many other charters, and the schools are evidently educating, so that doesn't seem to be an issue. So the CEO's compensation is basically a legitimate issue only for the group's board of directors, and a better place for it is in a WP article on charters generally.
Nick Levinson (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Edits per the above are now done (or, rather, were done a while ago). Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Would this be an acceptable photo for Wikipedia in terms of copyright? --✶♏✶ 10:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I like it, but I'd crop it, and that might violate the terms stated in Flickr. But since it comes from Congress, I think it qualifies as Federal work product (sometimes Congress exempts itself in laws written for the Executive branch, but I suspect they may not have for this purpose). To avoid Flickr's limitations, I suggest searching Congressional website/s to find the image (Flickr might have a Congressional address) and get it from there or to ask for waivers from the conditions in the license stated on Flickr, which might be needed for cropping and for commercial use (I forgot if Wikimedia legally counts as commercial or noncommercial use).
The cropping is because shrinking the image to be about half the width of the article as normally displayed in a browser would, I think, make Eva's face so small as to make it hard to recognize. Plus, the other people are not important to her picture or her article, as far as I know (if they are, they need identifications in a caption).
I guess you already know about uploading into commons.wikimedia.org and linking this article to that, but if you want information about that let us know.
Thanks for finding it. If it's added, it'll improve the article.
Nick Levinson (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Eva Moskowitz is very controversial in NYC, she has many critics, and many critical articles have been written about her in WP:RS, which should be reflected in this article under WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV.

All of the criticism of Moskowitz in this article seems to have been deleted, leaving the article looking like a press release. Please read WP:NPOV before you delete the criticism. Under WP:BLP, we are required to include only material supported by WP:RS, but we are not required -- or allowed -- to delete substantive criticism that is supported by WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

All of those newly-(re-)added criticisms are about her work with Success Academy Charter Schools. Therefore, they belong there, not in this article, and they're already in the schools article. This biographical article, with respect to the schools, is only a summary. To put the same content in both articles would be redundant and would create an editorial maintenance problem for Wikipedia. If critique about her work at the schools were to belong in the biographical article, then noncritique about her work at the schools would also belong in the biographical article, which means almost the entire schools article would be copied into the biographical article. It is very unusual, if it ever happens, for biographical articles to include much nonsummary information about organizations if the organizations are covered in separate articles. As examples, see articles about authors and separate articles about books the same authors wrote. Instead, articles are cross-linked, and the Moskowitz and Success Academy Charter Schools articles are cross-linked. On the other hand, if, say, the Harlem Education Fair was the subject of criticism, that would belong in the Moskowitz article, which covers the Fair, because the Fair does not have a separate article. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Nick, I don't follow you. Let me take this one point at a time. She's "drawing over $300,000 a year for overseeing 1,000 students, while New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein makes $250,000 for running over a thousand schools", according to Gonzalez. You deleted that from both the Eva Moskowitz article and the Success Academy Charter Schools article. Do you believe that belongs in either article? --Nbauman (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
It's in the Success Academy Charter Schools in the section Teachers and Management, but I left out the amounts, since she has also told an interviewer that others get paid more for less, in effect, and I left those out, too. But I can get that source at home and add it soon as a citation. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC) (Corrected link, albeit after next post: 15:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC))
I still don't understand. Why did you leave out the amounts? That's deleting well-sourced information. Gonzalez made the point that Moskowitz is making over $300,000 a year for overseeing 1,000 students, while the NYC Schools Chancellor makes only $250,000 for overseeing over a thousand schools. That's a legitimate point. Gonzales made the point stronger by giving the specific figures. It's vague and uninformative to simply say that some people think she's making too much (while some people think she isn't). --Nbauman (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It would create a weight problem in giving the dollar figures in one direction but not in the other direction. The latter are probably available from primary sources about the other schools, which can be used with care, but I haven't searched for those. The secondary sources pointing in both directions are provided for readers who want to research the point further. One could also raise the issue of the size of the managements at both charters and at the noncharter system, including above and below the Chancellor/CEO level; I think the noncharter system is larger. That, too, could be researched, with a somewhat better chance of finding it in a secondary source for the noncharter system, but again relying on primary sources for the charters, and if we don't use any source for the latter we'd have another weight problem. I think stating the argument in the schools article is the best compromise. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC) (Clarified/edited: 15:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC))
You say we would have to research the point from primary sources. That sounds like WP:OR To me. Why isn't that WP:OR? --Nbauman (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Original research is not allowed and secondary sources are preferred but primary sources are allowed under WP:PSTS. However, they must be used with care (meaning even more care than is required of secondary sources), if primary sources are to be used at all, and some are not allowed at all. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
Many WP:RS have given her salary. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/nyregion/in-east-harlem-school-building-uneasy-neighbors.html http://nymag.com/news/features/65614/index4.html http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/2365181/
Where in the text of WP:WEIGHT does it say anything that prevents us from giving Moskowitz' salary? --Nbauman (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Do we have the upward comparison of her compensation to that of in-city charter leaders who are paid more for fewer schools than she runs? I hadn't seen the Times article, and I'll likely read that tonight, but I haven't seen those numbers anywhere else. Without them, we're missing context. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
This has become about the Success Academy Charter Schools article, so all of the above has been copied to the Talk page there and all discussion should be continued there. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Summary for June 30, 2012

When I edited the article, mainly I added on Success Academy Charter Schools, educational background, views, elections, & Mayor Bloomberg; added the Publications and Interviews sections, moving bibliographic information; trimmed a reference; edited tense; restyled three references to her name; italicized; and deleted two newly added paragraphs (they were criticisms of the schools she runs and their deletion is discussed in the reply, to be posted shortly, to the talk topic/section WP:NPOV).

I plan to trim references shortly.

Further editing is planned, to come perhaps within a week or two, including for article organization and style.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Nick, everything critical seems to have been deleted from this article. Can you point to anything critical of Moskowitz in this article? --Nbauman (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, most of the criticisms were of her work with the schools or were about charter schools generally, so I moved them to those articles (Harlem Success Academy which is now Success Academy Charter Schools, Charter school (New York), and the article on charter schools generally). In the article about her, the Elections section has some in discussing opposition to her running, since that subject is not a separate article. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The Election section mentions that people ran against her, but it still doesn't have an criticisms of her. All it says is that she was anti-union and unions didn't like her for that reason. It doesn't give any specific objections that unions had of her, and it doesn't quote or refer to any union statements explaining why they oppose her.
Is that all the criticism? --Nbauman (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall that unions' objections were ever in this article starting when I first read it, unless they were school- or charter-specific. Doubtless there was press coverage of her campaigns in which criticisms of her were offered by opponents and their supporters and some of that would likely be valid for this article, but that would need research. If you're thinking that other criticisms should be there, which criticisms do you have in mind? Nick Levinson (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
You can go to any major article on Eva Moskowitz in almost any WP:RS, such as the New York Times, New York Magazine, Village Voice, and Daily News, and find criticisms. The most obvious one is her salary, as reported by Gonzalez. You deleted that. You've done extensive work on this article. Didn't you see any critcism? In my reading, there is no criticism, except that unions don't like her because she's anti-union.
I just want to make sure I'm correct. Except for the union reference, there is no criticism of Eva Moskowitz in this entry. Is that correct? Yes or no? -- Nbauman (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Many sources state criticisms of her and I've reported them, but because they're generally about the schools she runs or about charter schools of which she runs one subset, I've reported them in the Success Academy Charter Schools and charter school (New York) articles or possibly in the global charter school article. Because, with respect to the schools Moskowitz runs, the Moskowitz article is only a summary of the SA article, the criticisms are not repeated in the Moskowitz article. Suppose she had stolen money from SA; the theft presumptively unauthorized by SA, putting such a theft into the biographical article would be appropriate. But her salary is presumptively authorized by the school group and the group presumptively may do so and no one to my knowledge has said otherwise. Therefore, her SA salary is presumed to be an official act of SA and is reportable in the SA article, and is reported there, and does not belong in the biographical article that mainly and merely summarizes her SA relationship (her living proximately to SA and her enrolling two children in SA are personal and so belong in the biography).
I don't recall seeing in Wikipedia criticisms of her time in elected office or of her campaigns other than the criticisms already reported. I haven't done that research because, other than a possibility she may run for Mayor, a possibility I think is slim (she'd politically have to quit SA this year to run for major office next year), her personal electoral career seems to be over, so researching it is only of historical interest, and the historical interest in her City Council work is mainly in its meaning for SA and charters generally, already covered.
There almost certainly are sources contemporary with her campaigns and time in office and that state criticisms, if only because elections are competitive and public. But I don't recall deleting any such information. It probably was never in the Wikipedia article, at least not since I started reading it. If information was about SA or charters generally, I likely moved it, but that's not likely to have been the case with the time of her political career. There's no source I know of from the last couple of years or so stating non-SA non-charter criticisms of her other than what I reported, including in the Times, New York, the Voice, or the News. I likely missed a few articles but I probably saw most of them, since I search by school and personal name and I search in many more media.
I tend to exclude the N.Y. Post as notoriously unreliable in journalism generally. As the Post seems to favor her work nowadays, I imagine her people would prefer to include statements based on the Post, but I haven't heard that the Post has improved its journalistic standards (one media critic, Alex Jones, not the fringe theorist on radio and Web but a different person and one who went on to join Harvard, said that criticizing the Post for journalistic failings is like taking candy from a baby). A consequence is that I would miss critiques of Moskowitz appearing in that paper but I also would miss positive coverage of her in that same paper, and that helps to keep Wikipedia's standards up.
You've twice asked me to read you what the Moskowitz article says on point. I already gave you a general answer and, if you want a word-for-word recitation of the article, when I assume you have access to the article, please let me know if there is a complexity or other issue requiring my reading for you. If your computer/network system filters and blocks access to the page or if you suspect your system is incompletely rendering the page, try a known-good system, perhaps even through a different Internet service provider. Problems occurring at Wikimedia's servers or in the network before a conection I'm using tend, I think, to be obvious, not subtle, not the omission of a few words or article sections, but you can try other domains for their copies of Wikipedia content to see if they don't correspond. After that, if you're still having difficulty and you want me to copy and paste the article somewhere or do some such, let me know and maybe I can.
The Moskowitz article carries an implied criticism, implied because that's as far as the sources go, where the Wikipedia article says, "[a]ccording to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's speechwriter and policy advisor Francis S. Barry, in 2003 or 2004 Moskowitz objected to the Mayor's proposal to keep third-graders in third grade if their math and English scores on citywide tests were 'the lowest possible'.... According to reporter Joyce Mayer Perry, in 2004, Moskowitz did not oppose having a failing student repeat a grade but believed that intervention needed to be earlier so that children will succeed." Likewise, other implied criticisms are in the statements, "[Moskowitz] supported parents at noncharter schools raising money to hire teaching assistants of their choice, opposing the teachers' union's objections", "[Moskowitz] described herself as 'controversial'", and that she's "the subject of attacks".
Her view of a "complex" of opponents to "charters like hers" is in another statement in the article and that refers to criticism but I think I probably should move that passage to the charter school (New York) article. On the other hand, the Obama statement and her words about "the fight" might belong in the global article on charter schools but that kind of moving would need her views to be moderately important nationally and so probably should stay and, in either case, be counted as another implicit criticism, one of her view.
You've already noted the Elections section.
I have some other edits likely to come, mainly to the SA article but also possibly to the Moskowitz article.
Nick Levinson (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC) (Clarified phrasing: 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

NPOV

This article still sounds like it was written by a press agent. She is a very controversial figure in New York and nothing in this article reflects that. Also, where is the current deletion discussion? 71.108.135.193 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

She is certainly controversial but mainly these years for her work in running Success Academy Charter Schools, the subject of its own article, where controversies about the schools and how she runs them are extensively covered. Other controversies about her are in this article. Controversies that were in this article but were in substance about charter schools generally were moved to articles about charter schools generally and/or charter schools in New York. If you have sourcing for more within due weight, feel free to add it to any appropriate article or discuss it on this or another article's Talk page. If you see any example of advertising or press agentry tone, please edit or point to it. The current deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Moskowitz, as linked to on the article itself; feel free to join in. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
On NPOV, the article is already neutral. If you know of more content that should be added to maintain (or, if you think neutrality is lacking, to provide) neutrality, please edit or discuss appropriately. Sourcing will likely be needed and weight is relevant. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

revert to earlier version

As I explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Moskowitz I reverted to a NPOV non promotional 2010 version by Nick Levinson. A certain amount of updating will be needed, but a few sentences should do it. The detailed description of her actions on the City Council are not encyclopedic , and neither is the detailed presentation of her views; They should be saved for a campaign biography. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've begun a draft based on the last revision I edited and plan to post the link here when I've edited according to the useful suggestions now pending, because it would be far more work to update the current revision with just a few sentences than to edit the recent revision given what the sources say and given that she is both currently active and that, per a source, she has indicated a probability of running for Mayor in 2017, making her electoral career of interest to opponents already. Being detailed does not qualify a biography for campaign literature; campaign literature tends to be exclusively positive and this article was not, criticisms having been preserved, when campaigns have no such obligation. Omitting criticisms makes their re-addition likelier, only, as in the past, without both sides being stated, especially important under Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Many biographies in Wikipedia are detailed, and should be. That some are brief is not necessarily a model, subject to the limit imposed by browser loading capacity on slower computers. Whether it is encyclopedic depends on issues such as weight and neutrality, not brevity. Not all articles are summary articles or should be. Including both sides is part of neutrality. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Apart from that, whether some criticisms were trivial is something I'll review. I don't think any were (I disagreed on some substantively but not on whether some people would see them as significant), but I'll reconsider, since previously editors wanted them all and now one with respect to the Success Academy Charter Schools article suggests some are trivial. (Paragraph, as edited, moved from topic/section Whether to Reduce Criticisms and Therefore Both Sides). Nick Levinson (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed the draft for trivial and nearly trivial criticisms. There aren't any. If there were, they have already been deleted. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

propose to replace current Eva Moskowitz article with Eva Moskowitz draft

I've drafted a replacement for the current Eva Moskowitz article that should meet all needs. It is based on the revision that was live before it was reverted to a much older revision. The draft has been edited since, pursuant to useful suggestions at the talk pages for this article and the Success Academy Charter Schools (talk topic/section How to Proceed) article. The draft has also been edited for new content. The replacement is in my userspace at Eva Moskowitz draft.

The current revision has been outdated since it was lately posted and no one has updated it with just a few sentences or just a couple of hours of work. Even the schools group name has not been updated, or even tagged, by anyone (I didn't because I didn't want to interfere with another editor's announced work or appear to be). Due weight is lacking for much of her biography; e.g., her electoral career has gotten short shrift contrary to sources already cited before the reverting to the current revision, including a source (a feature article) required to establish notability and sought and supplied when the notability was questioned during the AfD discussion.

Anticipating a question: The External Links section includes websites typically not included because Moskowitz does not appear to have a personal website, the website of the Success Academy schools group (of which she is the CEO) is presumably not for her personal use, they're not anyone else's fan sites about her but, in effect, do represent her, and, as far as I know, the websites listed don't name each other.

I plan to replace the current Eva Moskowitz article with the one in my userspace. After that, I plan to add a hatnote into the Success Academy Charter Schools article to cross-reference Moskowitz' views on education expressed in her non-SA capacities; I didn't add the hatnote while the current live Moskowitz article had almost nothing on point, but after replacement the link will be practical.

I've deleted excess details, as shown in the Edit Summaries in the history of the draft.

I'll wait a week for any response.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

whether duplication between schools article and this article

The following is copied in relevant part from my last post at User talk:Nick Levinson#February 2013. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC))

[An editor] wrote, "the duplication of content in the article on a person and their organization is generally not a good idea." Agreed; and it did not happen. Moskowitz spoke of education before founding the schools group; her earlier views belong in the Moskowitz article unless we're to add to the schools group article a section on the founder's history, an unusual approach in Wikipedia, especially given that she is notable even without having founded any schools. And anything Moskowitz said on education even after the founding but while not in her capacity with the schools group probably would belong in the Moskowitz article, and I edited by that principle, based on sourcing. If anyone knows of even one failure to assign content to the proper article, please point to it.

. . . . .

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC) . . . .

whether to reduce criticisms and therefore both sides

The consensus up to this point was functionally to include many criticisms, since they were being posted especially to this article and some moved to the Success Academy Charter Schools article because of that article's creation and they were in a substantial number of sources, and therefore including both sides meant including more content. Consensus can change and if it is then perhaps both sides can be shrunk somewhat. However, I'm not sure consensus is changing, given that one of the most recent objections to this article leading to the AfD nomination was that she is "a very controversial figure in New York and nothing in this article reflects that", and that was before the post-AfD reverting. As long as we maintain balance consistently with sourcing, we could legitimately have more of both sides or less of both sides. What is the consensus on whether more or less?

I'd like to know what we think the consensus will be on more-vs.-less before I try to select the criticisms of less interest to editors who think there should be more.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC) (Corrected per Edit Summary: 17:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

(The following was also posted virtually identically at Talk:Success Academy Charter Schools#whether to reduce criticisms and therefore both sides.) Nick Levinson (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
While no one voted or expressed any view at this talk topic/section (other than me), I have collected all the stated views I know about on this question and collected them here, having searched the Eva Moskowitz and Success Academy Charter Schools current and archival talk pages, talk Edit Summaries, article Edit Summaries, and the Moskowitz AfD discussion and Edit Summaries. I included some quotations that may not have been intended by their authors to be about this issue because I wanted to be sure to include all stated views that might be relevant, so I may have overincluded. I have added to each view my characterization as favoring either more or fewer criticisms. They're in chronological order by first appearance except that views by the same editor or from the same IP address are grouped together under one more/fewer characterization. I excluded my past view from the search as unnecessary. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC) (Corrected unintended boldfacing due to self-referential link: 15:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC))
  • [More:] "In my view, this article is a difficult one to write and will inevitably have NPOV issues.... I think it is within the protocol of BLP to include the controversies associated with the charter schools run by Eva Moskowitz. These controversies are not slanderous or libelous, and from what I can tell, are embraced by Ms. Moskowitz herself in her life work. What makes Ms. Moskowitz' case different than other leaders of charter schools is her high standing in NYC and the leadership role she has taken on this issue. There isn't a reason why Moskowitz' BLP can't reflect, in a reasonable and respectful manner, the controversies generated by career. As the article originally stood, I would argue that there was a point of view bias hyping the schools she has created.... [T]his is not the place to argue on the merits and demerits of charter schools. But given the complexity of NCLB and testing, simple statements regarding high test scores, although seemingly factual, contain inherent biases. Although I imagine that her schools aren't involved overtly in cherry-picking students, my own experience in teaching has demonstrated how students with more stable socioeconomic backgrounds will gravitate toward charters and magnets, thereby creating hamlets where test scores will be high. Meanwhile, as the students with higher ability leave traditional public schools without lottery (or PR hype), test scores go down in the traditional school, more students leave, funding declines, test scores go down, in a continuing downward spiral. I don't mean to suggest that the traditional system has benefited all the students and that there shouldn't be reform. However, given how irrational the testing regime plays out under NCLB (which in many urban contexts does not succesfully delineate between good and bad schools), a simple reporting of test scores is inherently biased.... I would imagine that there is a way to edit the section in an unbiased manner." Corey (talk), 2010 March 8, 9:58p UTC, per Talk:Eva Moskowitz/Archive 1#Keep neutral .28not POV.29 .26 support any criticism.2C especially in BLP
  • [Fewer then more and more:]
  • [Fewer then more, more, and more:]
    • "Nocera article on Brill's book is a good introduction to this section. It summarizes and weighs the criticisms, rather than listing a laundry list of charges and counter-charges." Nbauman (talk), 2011 November 9, 11:00a local time, per Success Academy Charter Schools article Edit Summary
    • "This is not 'contentious', it's well-sourced WP:RS and required by WP:NPOV to prevent it from being an advertisement." Nbauman (talk), 2012 June 27, 8:54p local time, per Eva Moskowitz article Edit Summary, portion of quotation delinked here
    • "Eva Moskowitz is very controversial in NYC, she has many critics, and many critical articles have been written about her in WP:RS, which should be reflected in this article under WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV.... All of the criticism of Moskowitz in this article seems to have been deleted, leaving the article looking like a press release. Please read WP:NPOV before you delete the criticism. Under WP:BLP, we are required to include only material supported by WP:RS, but we are not required -- or allowed -- to delete substantive criticism that is supported by WP:RS." Nbauman (talk), 2012 June 28, 1:02a UTC, per Talk:Eva Moskowitz/Archive 1#WP:NPOV, title & portion of quotation delinked & further posts by same user seek more information with criticism
      • I replied elsewhere to this and the next posts that I had preserved the criticisms if sourced but had moved some of them, and had deleted unsourced criticisms. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Nick, everything critical seems to have been deleted from this article...." Nbauman (talk), 2012 July 3, 8:37p UTC, per Talk:Eva Moskowitz/Archive 1#Criticism
  • [Fewer:]
  • [More:] "She is a very controversial figure in New York and nothing in this article reflects that." 71.108.135.193 (talk), 2013 February 13, 5:03p UTC, per Talk:Eva Moskowitz#NPOV
  • [More:] "[F]or school groups where there has been some controversy, like here, more is needed.... [I]t's true that controversies over planning for schools that do not yet exist or that have been cancelled can sometimes be worth covering.... [On] general principles of education--in an article on a group of charter schools, it is not necessary to discuss the merits or controversies respected this manner of educational organization. Links to general articles handle this." DGG (talk), 2013 February 25, 2:27a UTC, per Talk:Success Academy Charter Schools#how to proceed
      • My comment made elsewhere was that such general education principles articles were not found and sourcing associating this schools group with one or another set of principles (other than being chartered) has not been found, so that the content, and not just linking, would likely stay in this schools group article minus some detail. That would determine where criticisms and neutral content on those points would appear. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
In conclusion:
I found 6 voters, including some commentary that may not have been intended to be relevant. The views and votes appear equally applicable to both the Eva Moskowitz and Success Academy Charter Schools articles, no one distinguishing between the two articles in their reasoning and the two article subjects being and having been so closely connected, so a single consensus applies to both. The votes as I imputed them were more by Corey; fewer then more and more by 24.185.198.61; fewer then more, more, and more by Nbauman; fewer by Grayfell; more by 71.108.135.193; and more by DGG.
Weighing what was written, I think this means that the consensus favors more rather than fewer criticisms but that minor nearly-trivial criticisms need not be reported (trivial criticisms, like any trivial content, would, of course, not be reportable).
Consensus can change, editors quoted above who believe their views were mischaracterized here may self-recharacterize their views, and any editors may weigh in.
Nick Levinson (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC) (Corrected a missing bracket (my error): 20:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC))
I reviewed the draft for nearly trivial criticisms. There aren't any. If there were, they have already been deleted. (I've proposed replacing the current article with the draft.) Nick Levinson (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

mainly about this article but originally posted at the schools group article's talk page

(The following is copied, insofar as likely relevant to this article and not duplicative of this talk page (and with edits shown), from the Success Academy Charter Schools talk page's How to Proceed section. It was a reply to earlier posting at that page. Some of this has already been replied to; but anyone may post further replies as suited. (Originally posted by Nick Levinson, March 10, 2013, 7:05 p.m. (UTC) & corrected hard space, ellipsis, & space before latter & conformed this paragraph for this sig block: Nick Levinson (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC))

Better articles, even without a Good Article designation, in my observation, do not generally get written in one or two hours, even if an editor is a speed-reader and a fast analyst, but I wish you [editor DGG] the best. I can't work that fast on many subjects, this one included, on which I often spent a couple of hours in a day just for a revision, including finding, getting, and reading sources.... I have no conflict of interest for editing ... the Moskowitz ... article and [plan to] produce what I think is both standards-compliant and responsive to suggestions. There has been a relative paucity of specific suggestions that are within policies and guidelines. For example, someone said the article is problematic under WP:BOMBARDMENT, I replied point for point based on that essay, and yet an editor said it violates that essay without saying how my response was wrong, which leaves me uninformed about what that editor still thought is a problem. My development of the userspace article draft is planned to be incremental and may take a few weeks to complete. I think it will be easier and more efficient to edit from a longer but up-to-date revision than to repeat the extensive research needed to go forward from a seriously outdated reverted-to revision. We'll see what the result is.

.....

.... The opposition ... [regarding Success Academy schools] was reported without my help (possibly in the Moskowitz article before the SA article was created)....

....

If the article is overly detailed, I can look for ways to trim. I already raised that question and asked for specifics, but they did not get posted until ... [recently]. I'll work on it.

Duplication between articles is rarely appropriate. Overlap is more common, in this case because the schools group and Moskowitz both are in sourcing relevant to views on education in which some views are attributable only to one and not the other or vice versa, and I maintained that distinction. For example, if she was speaking as a Councilmember and not as a CEO, the view belongs in the Moskowitz article, although when of interest to a reader of the schools group article linking is sufficient.

Citing to page numbers applies not only to print-only sources but to print sources for which unpaginated online versions also exist, because we cite to what we actually read, so if we read the hard copy we don't cite to the online version except in unusual cases when we cite both and distinguish. For audio sources, I thought we're supposed to cite to a location stated in minutes and seconds, but I can check what the standard is for that.

I plan to copy the Moskowitz discussion in this post to that article's talk page, but not now, as time is running out [this is that copy].

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

....
The following is copied in relevant part from my last post at User talk:Nick Levinson#February 2013. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC))
....
You wrote: "The usual rule is that a WP article should include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia, not material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients or students--that sort of content is considered promotional." That misdefines promotionality in Wikipedia and that is not how vast numbers of articles are edited. An article's content may be for readers with in-depth background, although it has to be understandable to people at a lower level.... Therefore, while we should write for clarity, we should not omit content so as to exclude readers who are knowledgeable in the subject. See the essay on readers first, which, to my knowledge, is uncontradicted by any policy or guideline. It is legitimate to include content for ... people interested in educational policy ... because promotionality is not defined by who might become a reader (cf. articles about musical albums) but by ... style (see on being like advertising). The Simple English Wikipedia is possibly only for readers with limited cognitive ability if that's due to language limitations, but I doubt even that. I have not found any statement about Wikipedia that directs editing so as to limit its audience to what you posit. If there were, a lot of articles would have to be deleted, such as many in the sciences. I have not seen a proposal to delete articles for overcomplexity of content....
Clarity, of course, is laudable as a goal. I'm happy to look for ways to make what I write easier to understand without omitting substantive content. Some of the new critiques of the Moskowitz ... article ... seem[s] to suggest a need for clearer identification of content to show its relevance to the article it's in.
You wrote, "the duplication of content in the article on a person and their organization is generally not a good idea." Agreed; and it did not happen. Moskowitz spoke of education before founding the schools group; her earlier views belong in the Moskowitz article unless we're to add to the schools group article a section on the founder's history, an unusual approach in Wikipedia, especially given that she is notable even without having founded any schools. And anything Moskowitz said on education even after the founding but while not in her capacity with the schools group probably would belong in the Moskowitz article, and I edited by that principle, based on sourcing. If anyone knows of even one failure to assign content to the proper article, please point to it.
.....
Nick Levinson (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC) ....
Additional issues:
....
Nick Levinson (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
On our audience and the complexity of an article's subject, I have not found a limit on Wikipedia's intended audience but did find an article evidently written for a more knowledgeable audience, a link being provided to a more accessible one: the string theory article (see a hatnote); the destination article in turn links back. I mentioned these points somewhat more extensively at my talk page in response to your topic.
Whether some criticisms were trivial is something I'll review. I don't think any were (I disagreed on some substantively but not on whether some people would see them as significant), but I'll reconsider, since previously editors wanted them all and now one suggests some are trivial.
....
Nick Levinson (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

image being checked

I'm trying to locate an image of Eva Moskowitz from a reliable secondary source. Because she is living, Wikipedia does not permit the use of a nonfree image, as, presumably, a free image can be created, and reliability could become an issue. One and only one image appears to be possibly free and I asked in Wikipedia about its legal status but it appears that it should be treated as nonfree, at least for now. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

article tagging of May 26, 2013

The new template at the top of the article appears to be the commencement of a new consensus and I don't object. I am almost certainly the most frequent editor. I helped Moskowitz in campaigning for office over a decade ago but not in her last campaign (about 8 years ago) even though I had the time, have never been paid or titled by her or by anyone or any organization on her behalf except that she gave me a book at the time but not her subsequent book, and have not heard from her or anyone or any organization on her behalf at any time since other than one post or message from the schools group. I probably overstayed my welcome and probably offended someone and I don't expect to hear from her about any campaign, school, or any other work in which she may be involved. I did not donate funds to any of her campaigns, schools, or other work. I admire what she has achieved and my own criticisms are comparatively minor. I do not have a conflict of interest.

The article's content closely follows sourcing and is neutral; I am probably more careful than most editors in editing closely to what sources say. Advertising is not present. Various criticisms were moved to the schools article or to articles on charter schools generally because that is where they belonged, while other criticisms were kept in this article because they were about her; and I added some criticisms of her, such as that by a Mayoral policy advisor regarding her opposition to holding back students who had the lowest possible test scores and whether a Mayoral plan would artificially boost test averages just as the Mayor would run for re-election and the union's objection to her view on parents hiring noncharter teaching assistants of their choice. Many statements in the article can be read as criticisms and do not need to be labeled as criticisms, such as the conservative magazine's writer describing her as a liberal and her criticism of the teachers' union's role in education. More explicitly severe criticisms of her exist on blogs but should not be reported when blogs are the only sources; and I think recent blogs (the small number I've sampled) tend to be more about her schools than about her outside of her schools. Usable sourcing tends to describe her neutrally or positively; that is not our fault. I have in my off-Wikipedia notes items to search for in The Chief, a pro-union newspaper, that may be more negative (I haven't seen them) but it is a newspaper for which back issues a few years old are hardly available; some libraries have stopped subscribing or discard issues quickly and, in my experience, periodicals are not available by interlibrary loan. I have reported negative information from other sources available. The Wikipedia article accurately reflects usable sources known.

Detail can be reduced if that is the consensus. Endnotes can be bundled if someone wants to do that large-scale work, both bundling and maintenance, since annotating is likely required to preserve text-to-referent integrity and the efficiency gain of naming ref elements would likely be lost. I can do some but I'm not sure that a new consensus would support content preservation if only most refs were bundled. Only about 3 instances of single-word endnoting are present and they, too, would need bundling or main-text reduction.

The bibliography having too many items is something I'll look into. It doesn't seem to, especially considering relevance to her more recent work, but I'll check what Wikipedia says on that.

The most important issue overall seems to be how much information the article should impart. Editors in the past have mainly called for more criticisms to be reported and neutrality, especially given BLP, requires reporting context insofar as sourcing provides it. If the relevance of detail needs explaining, that can be done, and if the issue is the weight of various topics including criticisms, that can be discussed for the development of a new consensus. One editor suggested that an electoral history is not reportable if the person is not now in office, but that is not Wikipedia's expectation, especially in view of her sourced intent to run again. While staying within policies and guidelines, we can re-address consensus and I assume we are now.

All audiences are addressed by Wikipedia. I have, I think a few times, seen assertions that we should not be writing for certain audiences but have found no policy or guideline to support such restrictions. If anyone can point to one, that would help.

I will review again for overdetailing; there are probably one or two items that can come out over the next few days as trivial. But by far most of the content does not qualify as trivia or as indiscriminately collected information.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it likely we will repeat the same process as with her schools. The same criticisms apply, and it would be very nice to see if they provided some information about what is appropriate here. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The bibliography is trimmed. No policy or guideline, as far as I know, addresses what would be considered substantively excessive, so I deleted City Council reports as, regardless of authorship, U.S. legislative reports generally tend to have very little influence after authors leave office (except probably in opposition research if the person becomes a candidate later) and Council 51 (a TV news series that may not have episodes, transcripts, summaries, or reports available now), and I deleted from the display (by commenting out) some items that were cited in endnotes anyway.
Neutrality has been maintained. Many of the criticisms purportedly about Moskowitz were actually about her schools or about many charter schools along with hers and were moved to the relevant articles. Those criticisms relevant to other parts of her work, such as UFT opposition to her electoral candidacies, have been reported and continue to be.
COI has been absent throughout. Since I replied to the charge, no one has disputed the reply or shown how my editing is nonetheless by a COI.
This article is not an advertisement, as that is an issue of tone. If what Moskowitz has done or said seems promotional when reported, that's in the nature of the subject, as is the case for almost any person or institution as a subject, and some of what she did or said will be read by some readers as negative, not positive, so that promotionality is in the judgment of each reader and is not a function of promotional editing. Promotional language is not present and has almost never been in the years when I've been editing the article.
I deleted some detail that was present as analogous to what appears in other biographical articles, but could be omitted. The remaining level of detail is appropriate given that it is largely about education, thus appropriate to her work in education in various stages of her career, especially her current work running schools and her previous work as the City Council education committee chair. The schools article as it now stands is presumably not meant as a model since it is under development by other editors, but most articles on most subjects should report what is sourceably due weight.
Bundling of citations is complete. The number of endnotes is somewhat smaller and yet everything remains correctly sourced. In general, references are after quotations or at the ends of long clauses and of sentences and bundled ref elements include annotations to make clear which source supports which statement. Placing references at the ends of paragraphs is possible but that would increase the annotation and maintenance burdens and lengthen the article when annotations are included.
I take it from your post that you want edits that go beyond policies and guidelines other than possibly WP:IAR, a policy which, even if applicable and if implemented across Wikipedia without exceptional justification, would make Wikipedia useless and internally ungovernable. A few Wikipedians might have that authority, but most of us are bound to work within policies and guidelines, such as those on neutrality and consensus. For example, although Moskowitz is not now in electoral office, her past holding of electoral office remains notable on its own, and it is common in many articles about politicians to retain coverage of past service, which is consistent with what is required for notability.
At present, then, no other editing appears needed, but please either edit or post what you or anyone thinks still needs doing. This talk page is open to consensus including for it to change, as the page has been whenever I've edited the article. If we disagree on a point, we can discuss, and we may agree before or after.
Nick Levinson (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC) (Added preposition & deleted excess bracket: 15:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC))

propose to delete COI template from article

I propose to delete the COI template from the article. I did not and do not have a conflict of interest and substantiated my not having one in the original post of this topic/section (before the subtopics/subsections), in the first paragraph, and no one has disputed it. So the template is no longer applicable. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. This template is meant for cases where, because of COI, neutrality is lacking in the article, and COI is and was nonexistent and the article is and was neutral. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

propose to delete Advert template from article

I propose to delete the Advert template from the article. The template is based on promotional tone and that is not present in the article, so the template is no longer applicable. This issue was addressed in this topic/section, in the post of June 14, 2013, and no one has replied. I'll wait a week for any response here. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

propose to delete Cleanup template from article

I propose to delete the Cleanup template from the article. Everything identified in the template's reason parameter value has been resolved, so the template is no longer applicable. This issue was addressed in this topic/section, in the post of June 14, 2013, and no one has replied. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

propose to delete Overly Detailed template from article

I propose to delete the Overly Detailed template from the article. All detail that I think may have been considered excessive has been deleted and no other excessive detail has been identified by anyone, so the template is no longer applicable. This issue was addressed in this topic/section, in the post of June 14, 2013, and no one has replied. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

propose to delete Multiple Issues template from article

I propose to delete the Multiple Issues template from the article. If the templates included within this one are deleted as today proposed above, this template would no longer be applicable. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

edits of this morning

Sources were deleted from four statements, leaving them unsourced.2:15a2:22a2:27a2:30a That's especially a problem when content is quoted. I restored the source citations.

A quotation was changed by the deletion of a word without it being replaced by an ellipsis. That was incorrect, and replacing the word with an ellipsis was not justified given the context, so I restored the word.

While it is true that advertising and promotion do not belong in the article, when a person did something, reporting it in accordance with sourcing is not advertising or promotion to which Wikipedia objects or Wikipedia would have almost no content about any person. Wikipedia objects to advertisement tone and promotional tone, not to reporting the substance of what a person has done or what other people have said about the person and about what they have done.

  • I restored on the Harlem Education Fair but reduced the amount of detail.
  • I restored on her views on the graduations with non-Regents local diplomas, the low reading levels, the quality of middle-class and other schools, and zoning as mandatory for families because they are significant to both her Council work at the time and her subsequent work with charter schools.

Two section headings were deleted, leading to confusion about the subjects of the sections remaining. I restored the deleted headings.

A hatnote qualifying the scope of coverage of Moskowiz' views was deleted. It remained necessary, so I restored it but with less detail, omitting the cross-reference for the time being.

I corrected a broken ref element.

I restored on her views on children's mental agility, the need to raise intellectual standards (a contrary view among some educators being to teach what students can be sure of learning, thus potentially lowering standards), and that rigor doesn't require money, these being underpinnings of her philosophy of what makes a good educational system, but I did not restore on her view of children's shortness being irrelevant as it was unnecessary or two other comments as they were redundant.

Most of what was on replication, including Hentoff's observation, was deleted, although an important part of a school system's being good is in the need for other systems to be able to replicate or at least consider how to be similarly good (and if the model system is bad how to avoid replicating that). I restored.

The Liberalism and Personal Role subsubsection was deleted. Given that she was an elected official and has indicated that she likely will run again, her political leanings and being controversial are very important and do not constitute promotion. The content was sourced to New York magazine, National Review, and other sources. I restored.

That she was considered an expert, attributed by a reporter to other people, and that she criticized the school system, given that she was criticized for her work in the same field, belong in the article. I restored, except that, because of redundancy with what followed, I did not restore that she was described "as 'a frequent critic of the school system'.<ref name="9CandsMBoroPresWhatTheySay-NYT" />"

That she considered science education to have been treated as a second-class subject is relevant to both her Council work and her subsequent schools stewardship and is more than simply about the shortage of classes and paying teachers well. I restored about second-class status.

On the video she produced titled Some Spirit in Me, I partly restored; the rest of it was weakly sourced, so I left it as deleted.

Deborah Siegel's judgment of Moskowitz' study on Betty Friedan was published and sourced, so I restored it, but I did not restore that Moskowitz' work on Friedan was one of only a few, a point that perhaps belongs in the Friedan article.

At least two edit summaries were misleading.2:19a2:34a Edit summaries should be accurate and, if one needs to be corrected, this can be done in a moment in a subsequent edit summary, such as when doing a minor or null edit.

On the other hand, I did not restore some deleted content:

  • Her statement on the compliance-driven system, although I think it is relevant to how she runs schools now. It said, "she said teachers are asked 'to fill out too much paperwork. We have a compliance-driven system, and that is not a design that organizes the school around teaching and learning.'<ref name="SchFounderSizeNoMatter-NPR" />" It may be too minor as detail.
  • With respect to the effect of having children on her work or on the work of her Council colleagues. Relatively speaking, that might be arguably less important than some other content, although, given the history of women in politics, many would disagree.
  • On the high school she lobbied to have opened during her Council tenure, because the issue of the commission is minor, although that she did the lobbying (which I think resulted in the school being opened) is important and another source, more on point, may turn up and should be added.
  • On whether higher math and reading scores were misleading and the views of professors. Although that is generally an important issue, perhaps a more direct criticism from her of the scores would be better, if one exists.
  • Her evaluation of the Mayoral candidates' field, the UFT's role, and her leadership of parents at City Hall, because that content is dated and she is not a candidate for 2013, close to one to my knowledge, or a major analyst of the politics for this year.
  • Her protest of a store sign on selling children into slavery I left as deleted, as it is arguably minor in context.

Most of the book summary that was deleted I left as deleted, although the longer summary was still a summary and not an ad; and I restored a sentence on teachers who would "understand children" vs. principals who wanted "more drill" because of its relevance to her subsequent work.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eva_Moskowitz/Archive_1&oldid=1136710438"