Talk:Ruby K. Payne

Stub
This article is labelled as a "stub" but in fact it's precisely the level of detail that this person deserves. Truddick (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on criticism
User 75.166.140.195, you are supposed to discuss why you don't want the criticism section here, instead of edit warring. Courtesy ping Asukite and JPxG who have reverted your edits. -- Ashley yoursmile!  18:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The criticism section should be removed per Criticism Of course it won't be due to the ridiculous degree of liberal bias on Wikipedia, but let me make a futile attempt anyway.


 * "Many education professionals" is a generalization, the criticism goes on to name one person Paul Gorski.
 * Unsurprising to note, Gorski is a left wing radical who has dedicated his life to advancing psuedoscientific narratives like white privilege as an explanation for all the world's woes. But again, because we're dealing with ridiculous degrees of liberal bias on Wikipedia, anyone who espouses leftist truisms is automatically a credible source. Gorski himself disputes this saying "I'm still surprised when I'm invited to do a keynote, consult with a school or other organization, or do just about anything else that requires expertise. I don't see myself as an expert"
 * The source comes from the SPLC, a group who has become a caricature of itself, labeling virtually anyone who does not fall in line with its left-wing ideology an “extremist” or “hate group.”
 * Furthermore, SPLC's Teaching Tolerance (TT) competes directly with Payne's company and the people it quotes are primarily people directly affiliated with TT. TT's marketing material that attacks a competitor is not a credible source.
 * Again we cite a Gorski paper and wouldn't you know it, hosted on, an organization founded by Gorski and that competes with Payne for educational workshops and has a clear financial incentive to discount her work for their own benefit.
 * "Payne's work is self-published and has not undergone the rigorous peer-review process usually required of professional academics" fair, but also a laughable double standard on Wikipedia when garbage like Peggy McIntosh's opinion paper that forms that foundational conjecture of white privilege is taken as fact over at white privilege. Wikipedia liberal bias in action once again.
 * "An article by Gorski and one by University of Kansas education professors Jennifer C. Ng & John L. Rury (2006) in the Teachers College Record, entitled "Poverty and Education: A Critical Analysis of the Ruby Payne Phenomenon", began a heated debate between Payne and her supporters, and her numerous detractors in the mainstream academic community.[7]" Again, more Gorski and the source only cites that Gorski doesn't agree with Payne, not that it led to a heated debate.
 * "A more extensive article critical of Payne's work was published by Randy Bomer, Joel E. Dworin, Laura May & Peggy Semingson of the University of Texas in 2008, also in Teachers College Record, with a response from Payne and a rejoinder from the authors.[8]" The entire paper boils down to, and misses entirely, the point two bullets up that Payne's work is not an academic paper and is written for an audience of non-academics.
 * "Ng and Rury also published a critical article in the online Journal of Educational Controversy in 2009.[9]" Great, someone wrote a paper, what does it actually say?

The entire criticism section is garbage. It's only here because liberal editors choose to ignore the Wikipedia rules because it lets them advance liberal narratives around systemic racism as the root of poverty and not counterproductive choices, beliefs and attitudes as presented by Payne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.140.195 (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since there are no objection to removing the criticism section, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Binksternet if you have concerns about the decision to remove the criticism page you should bring them up here. The concerns with the criticism section were clearly explained above. Either suggest an update that addresses them or leave the criticism section out as it has numerous problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Arsonxists if you have concerns about the decision to remove the criticism page you should bring them up here. The concerns with the criticism section were clearly explained above. Either suggest an update that addresses them or leave the criticism section out as it has numerous problems.
 * Okay, seriously, I think you have a COI. Your points are more political, critizing mainly the fact that they are liberals. 5 out of 9 of your points TEAR INTO the liberal bias on Wikipedia, even when neutrality is one of Wikipedia's core policies. I think you're missing the point of these critism pages. They're for CRITISM. The "far-left liberal who uses pseudo science" is a credible source because he CRITISED, proving that the criticism actually existed. Infact, every single point that relies on "liberal bias" when they only proved that the criticism existed. Arsonxists (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Arsonxists Please do not attack editors and instead focus your arguments on the content. The criticism section relied heavily on marketing material from organizations that compete with Ruby Payne. Would you like to suggest updated content that addresses the concerns above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was irritated by the edit war, but I still think the critism is still worthy of inclusion. If you want, you can reinstate the criticism section, while adding a sentence to the criticism section to say that these claims were false. I'm fine with that, but please add a source, and that can be the end to this. Arsonxists (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With the original criticism section included, the title of the article should be renamed to "Criticism of A Framework for Understanding Poverty" since that's the primary focus of the article. Per Criticism, articles should avoid criticism sections all together and instead add criticisms in line. In this case, the article does not present the POVs that are being criticized in the criticism section. At the very least, the criticism section shouldn't be added back in until the above points have been resolved. While perhaps presented in a suboptimal way, they are still valid objections.
 * Why don't we just remove the "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" section as well since it's missing citations and at that point there's nothing controversial left in the article? If at some later date an editor wants to write a more balanced POV on Payne's work that presents her ideas from Framework and countering views from Gorski, Ng and Rury then so be it. WDYT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Problem is, we can't wait to rewrite it. The last edit made before the edit war was spaced out, and only occasionally getting edited. before the edit war. This is not an active page, we have to rewrite it ourselves or never. Reinstating the section, but having the "The neutrality of this section is disputed" infobox on it is better, I think. Arsonxists (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't do it right this minute, but give me a day or two and I'll take a stab at rewriting the Framework section with more details on Framework and give appropriate weighting to the RS from the criticism section. I don't think it's appropriate to use marketing material from competitors as a RS when criticizing someone's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.150.117 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Arsonxists (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The EdWeek reference I added talks about Gorski as a prominent critic, and it says Payne has said she might sue him for copyright, which looks to me like an attempted chilling tactic. Whatever it is, it didn't work on Gorski who laughed it off. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)