Talk:David Coleman (educator)/Archive 1

Inappropriate educator category removed
An editor inappropriately applied the category "Educator" to the article. He has never been employed as a professional educator. That he is the "architect" of the national standards, the Core Curriculum, does not replace this absence in his resume.Gogue2 (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing of Common Core
An editor attempted to remove the following, which deals with an essential part of education, which the Common Core has removed: These standards, among other things, eschew literature and arts and substitute technical and vocational reading for most of the scholastic reading curriculum. < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-chura/what-common-core-curricul_b_3131099.html>Gogue2 (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An anonymous editor, just an IP address, not a regular Wikipedia account holder is removing material, the same referenced above. The person is providing no valid reason for why the information should be removed. The person needs to engage on the Talk page. Otherwise, these editors are trying to make the article a POV piece.Gogue2 (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * More POV language not belonging in an encyclopedia: "achieve the promise of the Common Core State Standards."Gogue2 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleted the language about Common Core and the reference to the HuffPo piece. You noted that it was factual material but in my view it's opinion-based. One could find just as many articles for the Common Core as against it. That doesn't make it factual. Better to just leave that out. Also removed the reference to the terms of the acquision between Grow Network and McGraw Hill. That's irrelevant to this entry on David Coleman and would be more appropriate for an entry about either one of those entities. However, I agree with your POV edits.ndenise (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Fabrication of Common Core creation process, deceptive reference to article
An editor put this in a sentence about the Common Core: ", a process that drew on the input of states, higher education, business leaders, researchers from across the country and a teacher " The editor wrote this in connection with this article: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2009/07/national_standards_process_ign.html However, nowhere in this article does this information appear. Interesting that so many of the contributors to this article are working on IP addresses.Gogue2 (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional white-washing
The sale of the Grow Network to McGraw Hill was in July 2004 not 2005 as earlier reported. By the McGraw Hill's own statement: "The terms of the acquisition were not disclosed." A newly established editor "Ndenise" has removed this fact from the article. This is not opinion based material. It's from the company's own site.Gogue2 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is material from the site, yes. That's undisputed. However it doesn't belong in this entry. It is irrelevant. It adds nothing to the section in which it is included. Being a newly established editor does not change that fact. ndenise (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)