Talk:Christopher Cerf (school administrator)/Archive 1

NPOV
I have no prior knowledge of this person, but the entire structure seems like an attack article. There is hardly any biographical info, and a list of controversies right off the bat is a very slanted presentation. WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are non-negotiable policies. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have to agree with you about NPOV concerns. The first section discusses how "Cerf is not a resident of Newark, but instead lives in the N.J. suburb of Montclair, a reported site of a 'large number of high-profile backers of a national reform movement.'" ,which seems to be an attempt to create some sort of guilt by association. The connections to billionaires issue is also problematic. I will see what I can do to achieve a greater level of neutrality about a person who is in fact notable. Alansohn (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , What is problematic about the evidence that Cerf is connected to billionaires? --Bellshook (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , this is WP:COATRACKing at its worst. You list Cerf and a bunch of names of people who happen to be billionaires. What is the relevance, other than some sort of insinuation that billionaires are all inherently evil and that this original sin has rubbed off on Cerf because of this connection. Alansohn (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , The citations explain and elaborate on the connections between Cerf and billionaires. Most people are not closely connected to billionaires, so the connection is noteworthy. I do not mention "evil" or "original sin" -- so you are making that implication, not my writing. If you can find evidence that Cerf is NOT connected to billionaires, then I suggest you add that evidence to Wikipedia. Indeed, I would welcome such evidence as it would expand and deepen this article. Regardless of whether you can find evidence of NO connection to billionaires, there is no reason to remove facts (based in several citations) from Wikipedia that reference Cerf's connection to billionaires. I do not want to withhold that information from the public. --Bellshook (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy section
I've removed the below section from the main article as both User:Animalparty and I agree that it violates WP:NPOV- the section is entirely negative. This is especially important as the article is a biography of a living person. I recommend that the section be rewritten complying with our policies before being readded. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Controversies, Scandals, and Connections to Billionaires
Cerf has been at the center of a number of controversies. These include:
 * a charge of nepotism by New York City's Conflict of Interest Board,
 * racial discrimination lawsuits filed against the organizations he oversaw,
 * using philanthropic money to enrich his for-profit corporations,
 * replacing public schools with charter schools in Newark,
 * state arbitrators finding in Sept. 2017 that the Cerf-run NPS improperly withheld pay from teachers,
 * a resolution by the US Department of Education Civil Rights that found in favor of the plaintiffs who asserted Cerf's reforms had racially disparate impact.
 * Cerf's performance as president at Edison Schools was controversial because the company, as the NY Times reports, "collapsed in the face of disastrous financial and operating performance as well as accounting irregularities."
 * failure to properly report owning more than $6 million dollars in shares of a company that the New York Dept. of Education, where Cerf was a consultant, was paying on a multimillion dollar contract.
 * Cerf's performance at the for-profit education corporation Amplify was similarly questioned because, he left Amplify "barely a year" after he began, "just before News Corp., Amplify’s parent, announced its intention to sell the division in the face of mounting losses."
 * Charter schools that Cerf supported  subsequently closed under suspicious circumstances, closed for failing to provide special education, and closed because of weak academic programs.
 * Amplify received $2.3 million from Newark Public Schools, a relationship that raised suspicions of conflicts of interest because of Cerf's connections to both entities.
 * An Attorney General was called to investigate "Cerf’s ties to individuals involved in the purchase of the 18th Avenue School in Newark. The public school building was sold by the district – a process overseen by state-appointed Superintendent Cami Anderson – and eventually conveyed to an outfit called ‘Pink Hula Hoop.’ The ‘company,’ Pink Hula Hoop LLC, was run by a former business partner of Cerf who worked with him on charter school efforts in New York."

Mr. Cerf is a contentious education reformer possibly because, as one author suggests, "He often invoked war metaphors in discussing the politics of education reform." In 2011, the Star Ledger reported that Mr. Cerf said, "I do not believe that anything we do is going to create a peaceful environment." Mother Jones reports Cerf said, “change has casualties” and “you have to override political infrastructure.” NJ State Senator Ron Rice said in 2011, “Acting Commissioner Cerf prevaricates. He doesn’t tell all truths."

Although Cerf is politically connected to Democrats like Bill Clinton, he is connected to Republicans such as Chris Christie and Jeb Bush. One analysis concludes that Chris Cerf was "arguably the chief architect of [Gov. Christie's] school reform approach." Another report from 2011 found evidence that Cerf "will be completely on board with the Governor's education reforms." Cerf was hired as a political advisor by billionaire NYC Mayor Bloomberg, who was a Democrat, a Republican, and who ran for office as an Independent. Cerf has strong connections to several billionaires, such as Eli Broad, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, and Rubert Murdoch.


 * Nowhere in WP:NPOV does it say that you can't cover controversy. --Bellshook (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV#When_to_remove: "The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources." The "controversy" section is well-cited. Indeed, each sentence is cited. The content refers to articles produced by respected media org's (e.g., NYT). It regurgitates the criticisms that others' have reported. There is little, if any, "editorializing" and there is no independent research. --Bellshook (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Five principles from WP:NPOV and how they do not seem to be violated by this section:
 * 1. "Avoid stating opinions as facts." (there are no opinions stated in this section -- just regurgitation of news reports)
 * 2. "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." (anything that *might* be contested is prefaced with "a charge" or "state arbitrators found" or "the NY Times reports."
 * 3. "Avoid stating facts as opinions." (again, the copious citing seems to be a good way this section does not conflate facts and opinions)
 * 4. "Prefer nonjudgmental language" (removing this well-cited content would be to take sides, so the problem is with the removal, not the inclusion of verified controversies).
 * 5. "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." (This is a section on controversies, so if you would like to research views that oppose the NY Times, the US Dept of Education, and other sources, then please *add* to this section...and then figure out what the correct relative prominence should be. For example, I know of no source that opposes the fact that a charge was brought by NYC's Conflict of Interest Board, but if you find someone who says that a charge was not brought, then feel free to add that view.)


 * In sum, please take the time to edit or remove specific statements if they fail to meet specific criteria, but it is unnecessary and overzealous to remove the entire section. Lastly, here is another bit from WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." Notice the "do not remove sourced information." I've added back in the section. --Bellshook (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC) ==
 * You've quoted a lot of WP:NPOV, but please read WP:BLP: especially WP:BLPSTYLE: the tone of this article is very opinionated, filled with loaded language: Language like "has been at the center of a number of controversies" distorts the truth (some references do not directly mention Cerf, "replacing public schools with charter schools" is not in itself a controversy,), and there is a world of difference between "been accused of" and "has done". You've cited personal blogs (jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com, bluejersey.com (also written by Mr. Jazzman), bobbraunsledger.com, parentingthecore.com, schoolsmatter.info), all of which are violations of WP:BLPSPS and you've conveniently left out positive or even neutral coverage: from this 2009 New York Times article, where you extracted "one of the world’s largest operators of public schools for profit" we also learn that Cerf is "a widely admired figure in the education world", and assisted in Michael Bloomberg's re-election campaign. Other sources such as www.saveourschoolsnj.org teachers' unions, have a vested POV. Phrases like "Some have argued" are weasel words, and there seems to be a bit too much comparisons like "Cerf says A, however this other thing happened".  I've already invested too much time in combing through this, I think we need more eyes. I'm a progressive person myself, but the tone of this article makes me want to dive into Fox News and for a semblance of balance. Check out this Philly.com article for how to neutrally present a biography. I believe a notice at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is in order. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Animalparty, I appreciate your more thorough work and editing. I agree that more eyes on this would be good -- especially some eyes that are knowledge about the subject. However, the original issue JCC and you had with this article was that it violated WP:NPOV. I responded that it did not violate NPOV. Let's resolve that issue first. What specific parts violate NPOV? I think working at the sentence level is warranted, but I'm glad to go back and forth about the best unit of analysis. My big point is that almost all sentences are cited -- a much higher proportion of sentences is cited here than in many Wikipedia articles. But if some of my cites are wrong -- that is, if some of what I wrote is contrary to another source, then it should be changed -- so I would appreciate more eyes on those parts. Thanks.
 * I have posted a notice at BLP noticeboard. Hopefully constructive attention will follow. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And I've removed the section again, as simply re-adding it isn't how this works. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Christopher Cerf (producer) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Remove "The neutrality of this article is disputed."?
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV#When_to_remove : "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies."

What "specific" and "actionable" issues gave rise to this tagging?

@Coffeeandcrumbs This issue needs your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellshook (talk • contribs) 14:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Title parenthetical best includes "businessman"
changed "businessman" to "attorney." Another wikipedia user, (see here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Cerf_(producer)#Requested_move_16_July_2018), suggested this did not help disambiguate because the relevant Cerf is rarely referred to as an attorney. I think we should keep "businessman" in the title to help disambiguate. I think "school administrator and businessman" provides good info to distinguish from the other Cerf. Bellshook (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Bellshook

If you don't like this article, and want to write a different one, start a new entry; don't delete the content here that follows WP rules
There is significant debate, and no consensus, about how to proceed. The worst possible way to proceed is to delete a well-cited article. If you want to write a different article, I suggest trying a draft. If you want to edit things on this article, of course, proceed (and document your reasons for deleting or adding material...as has been done numerous times on this version) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellshook (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Each subject on Wikipedia only has a single page. I cannot start a naw page about the same subject. Wikipedia is a colloborative project but there cleir guidelines for how information is presented. When considering policies like WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, the version you continue to revert to is wholly inadequate. It is totally scewed and required a total rewrite.--- Coffee  and crumbs  21:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem to want to write about different subjects (i.e., you even tried to change the title of the article from "businessman" to "attorney"). You are free to write about Cerf as an attorney or any other facet of his life, either by adding to this entry or starting your own. However, it makes no sense to delete the well-sourced, well-cited, legitimate offerings that others have made. Instead of doing a "total rewrite" you can straightforwardly edit words, sentences or sections -- given that your edits may be disputed, I suggest doing small edits and then justifying them. That way we can proceed by not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and you can still collaborate reasonably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belshook (talk • contribs) 02:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not going to repeat the clear explainations given above and how this page is in need of a complete rewrite. I do want to affirm that I renamed the article to include "attorney" instead of "businessman". That was because my first choice Christopher Cerf (school administrator) was blocked by the redirect created when you moved the page from the original Christopher Cerf (school administrator) to Christopher Cerf (school politician and businessman). The subject is barely notable as a businessman. He has not started any significantly notable businesses and is not well known as a businessman. It has been your POV and intent as evidenced by other discussions on this page to paint a connection between his business career and his school administrator actions. He is however a notable school administrator and, in a secondary level, a somewhat notable attorney. The school administrator part is self evident. See extended content below that demonstrates the attorney side.

Cerf served as a clerk to J. Skelly Wright, a judge in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 1985, He later became a clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As a clerk, former Justice O'Connor later described Cerf as "a hard worker, a sensible worker, and he was just excellent. You can't find any fault with him." He later served on the advisory board of iCivics, an education non-profit founded by O'Connor.

After his clerkships, Cerf worked as a lawyer in two law firms in Washington, D.C., a period in which he returned to the Supreme Court to argue two cases, one of which he won. One of two Washington firms Cerf worked for was Onek, Klein & Farr. Many years later, Joel Klein, a partner at the firm, would appoint Cerf as his deputy in the New York City Department of Education. Cerf later joined Bill Clinton's first campaign for President of the United States. And after the campaign, from 1993 to 1996, Cerf was associate counsel to President Clinton. In that capacity, he worked on tobacco regulation and efforts to protect prisoner’s rights to petition for habeas corpus.


 * Also please thread your comments using colons and sign your posts by ending your statements with  so we can have a clear discussion.---  Coffee  and crumbs  03:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about editing by Coffeeandcrumbs
How can we get coffeeandcrumbs to play by the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellshook (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * please read WP:OWNERSHIP and the essay But it's true!. It is the opinion of several others that your version of article was problematic and slanted, e.g. a WP:COATRACK. I'm not going to rehash the discussions already on this page. I would advise you take a step back for a few days, let a different editor (one without agenda or heated emotions) take a crack, and then discuss proposed changes here on the talk page. We work on consensus, in addition to the content policies, and the end product may not be an article you like the most, or wrote the most, but will hopefully be one that most approaches a fair and professional quality article with impeccable sources. Please assume good faith that the edits of others are solely in the interests of making a better article. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

--Animalparty! I won't rehash the many comments on this talk page that I have written that have gone unaddressed. Why don't you advise @Coffeeandcrumbs to take a step back for a few days and let the edits of the many folks who have worked on this article continue to stand? As is @CoffeeandCrumbs has DELETED an ENTIRE entry, which several authors have written after significant protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellshook (talk • contribs)
 * The title of this section was originally "Coffeeandcrumbs is vandalizing this article. How can his COMPLETE deletions of this article be reverted?". I removed this and put up a more neutral title. Incorrect charges of vandalism are blockable. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Article does not need a complete makeover
On Aug. 13, I reverted to a pre-delete version. Let's resolve differences here and work for consensus on the talk page before beginning an edit war. Bellshook (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Many have contributed, so a complete makeover would erase the legitimate and valuable work of many.

This article is still 99% about controversy [WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE 99% claim or are you just be hyperbolic for the sake of trying to win an argument?] (i.e. a coat rack article, even with the "list of controversies" removed [THE LIST OF CONTROVERSY GAVE STRUCTURE TO THE ARTICLE], and there is almost no structure, e.g. chronological or thematic [THERE ARE SEVERAL SECTION HEADINGS THAT PROVIDE STRUCTURE AND THEMES]. A decent article would at least start with the basics: who is this guy, where did he get his education, early career, etc. then move into his time at Newark Public Schools, giving significant events no more or less coverage than is due giving the entirety of the subject's career: the current (poor) state of the article suggests he's done almost nothing else. We can state facts neutrally, even if some sources themselves are very biased, by omitting or severely limiting direct quotes, which can be misused (for good or bad), as cherry-picking. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree I am going to TNT this article and start over. As this is a BLP, I am surprised no one has done already. If there are no objections, I going make my bold move in a couple of days. Pinging a few more interested people: --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Godspeed and good luck. I note that the most fervent defender of the current status of this slanted article, Bellshook, has edited almost exclusively with regards to Cerf and New Jersey public schools, suggesting a single purpose account. Disinterested editors without agendas are much preferred. There are still too many non-RS blogs, press releases from partisan orgs, and primary sources used as references. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. When I get to a good stage, I would appreciate your input to ensure I don't swing too far back in the other direction. Cerf has had a long career. First as a lawyer (clerked for J. Skelly Wright and Sandra Day O'Connor then served in the White House Counsel's office) and then as a school administrator in New York City, New Jersey State and then finally in Newark. This page ignores all of that and focuses entirely on Newark. There are many editorials and articles about his career, many of them with lots of praise and just as many with criticism. I will try to find a good balance per due weight.--- Coffee  and crumbs  21:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks for taking on this task. Best of luck. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The basic article should not be thrown out! It is beyond the pale to throw out a WP entry that has withstood months of critique and has undergone revisions. Proceed by REVISING what is wrong. Do not remove from history the truth about this guy. Do not proceed with your re-write. I will revert all changes to before you threw out pages and pages of truthful content that met WP standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellshook (talk • contribs) 14:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This article contains many more citations and direct quotes from suitable news organizations than many biographies of living persons. The original authors have done a good job of discussing what is obviously a controversial person. There is no reason to do a makeover of this article. Why would you delete sections where every sentence is cited and there are direct quotes? No good reason can be given for vandalizing this Wikipedia entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellshook (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)