Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformative Teacher Education


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. As is standard practice for deletion discussions, less weight has been given to the !votes of new/unregistered users. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Transformative Teacher Education

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm somewhat hesitant to nominate this for deletion as it's an interesting read, but as far as I can tell it's pure original research and/or a synthesis. If someone thinks they can rescue this then please do, I just don't have the time to attempt to edit something this huge. Contested prod. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, I guess. There's plenty of significant scholarly use of the term "transformative teacher education", so the article subject passes WP:N.  As for the content, it's not obviously POV and it cites what appear to be reputable offline sources throughout the text.  In the absence of being able to check those sources, policy is to assume good faith.  But I will go past WikiProject Education and draw it to their attention in case someone with more expertise wants to look it over. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR per GregJackP below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep this page It is very useful in conveying a concept and the references to support it.  I did some work on the page to change titles and some phrasing which might seem opinionated.  I think it is a very important contribution for individuals in education. Mo2718 March 23, 2010   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo2718 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:OR. (GregJackP (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Request for clarification - Sorry, by "fails WP:OR" do you mean that you are familiar with the sources cited and the article represents a misrepresentation or synthesis of them? Or that you feel that regardless of the content of the sources the claims made in the text are inherently unverifiable? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - primarily a synthesis of the sources to promote a thesis - not accurately representing the material presented in that various points were aggregated to advance the position presented in the article. I looked up several (not all) of the references via EBSCO Host and JSTOR. (GregJackP (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment - Your contributions give me no reason to doubt your good faith so I'll accept your word that the representation of the sources doesn't stack up. I've changed my position above to "delete as OR".  Thank you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - GregJackP, since you are under the belief that the article is a synthesis to promote a thesis, could you perhaps point me to the thesis statement? Could you specifically point to a couple of the references you looked up via EBSCO Host and JSTOR and show me how the references differ from what is being represented in the article.  I feel it's probably easier to rescue this article and remove some of the POV than to completely re-write it from scratch.  I don't want my work to go to waste simply because someone feels it's WP:OR or a synthesis promoting a particular point of view.  kgrr  talk 01:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP - I have also looked up some of the sources from this article and information that I found that was in the wikipedia entry did match some points presented in those sources. I think the problem is more an issue of lack of specific referencing. If the author corrects that, it will be a GREAT article with information that is not collectively presented elsewhere.Katt in FL (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)katt in FL
 * Hi, Katt in FL. I have no doubt as to your good faith in the above comment, but given that this is your first contribution to Wikipedia under that account name, in a dispute between you and GregJackP I'm inclined to go with GregJackP.  Are you able to provide some specific examples or quotes showing that the article correctly represents the sources? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is a possibility that I am mistaken, given the citation style. It might be a good idea to relist and/or get an expert to look at the article. (GregJackP (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I've already left a message at the WikiProject Education talk page. I'm not aware by name of particular Wikipedians that I could ask for comment but if anyone else is, please let them know we're discussing this. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response - I previously read Kitty Kelly Epstein's book & article, information from the listed sources is used in the wikipedia repeatedly although not specifically referenced (I did go back and browse through book & read article again). I have also read the article by Sleeter, there is information from that source in this wikipedia as well, although not referenced directly.  I looked up the information on recruiting teachers from outside the U.S. in the newspapers listed, that information is accurately discussed.  I also looked up the information on requirements to teach in other countries (referenced at the end of the page as Ingersoll) that information is accurate.Katt in FL (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)katt in FL
 * Comment - katt, it would have been better if you just came out and stated that you participated in creating the article on another website - it calls your above comments into question. (GregJackP (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Comment - It looks like someone is cleaning up the article, mainly formatting the references properly. I agree that an article on this topic is viable, just that the article that existed when I filed this looked very much like OR/synthesis/essay. If it ends up being deleted it would probably be worthwhile to userfy it so that it can be made compliant with guidelines. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be some consensus developing that an article on this topic is viable. I think that there is more here that is useful than is worth deleting.  After cleaning up the references a bit, it's evident that the references are representative of the sources and the article is structured well.  There are some references which I left in External links for now that are probably references for some more of the material presented.  I have not been able to find where they go.  The article still needs a good Lead paragraph to introduce the topic.  I'm a Systems Engineer and not an educator, so I'm not an authority here.  It's not WP:OR since most points being made are backed with references.  But it seems to me the article is pushing a POV rather than letting the facts present themselves.  Is there another side to this?  Perhaps what the article needs is a review by an expert in education.  I will continue by wikifying the article.  kgrr  talk 14:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is a worthwhile topic. Obviously the author needs to add further citations but the article should be kept.````Solace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.199.87 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep This is a valid wikipedia topic, it is currently being discussed in the educational world. Referencing needs to placed inside the article, it appears the author is working on this.  Cited sources that I randomly checked were accurately represented in the article.98.85.67.183 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Teacher
 * Keep I think this a worthwhile article. It seems that the author is fixing citations so give them a chance to do so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.105.7 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - I am not the original author, but I am working on cleaning it up so it can be rescued. I have moved all of the references that I could inline into the article. I am now looking at the rest of the references and will find where in the article they belong. I am also wikifying the article (adding wikipedia links to other wikipedia articles) as I go.  Any red wiki-links are new wikipedia articles that need to be written (for example Teach Tomorrow in Oakland, Kayleen Beers, Kagan strategies and ideologies ...etc.)  These are terms that I did not understand reading the article as a novice in the field.  Please feel free to lend me a hand so we can save it before the week is up.  kgrr  talk 22:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP GREAT TOPIC PLEASE DO NOT DELTE THIS PAGE. The references are coming in ask we speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.216.189 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * keep this is a valid topic,references are being fixed.page should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.232.138 (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * weak delete, currently this is an essay with shades of OR. Needs a rewrite. Also way too many SPA votes in here. Hairhorn (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - No need to delete the whole article due to "shades of OR". Yes, it needs some work, but it is a notable topic that definitely deserves a Wikipedia article.  If you notice the history, I am working through the article in order to remove the "shades of OR" and clean it up with the help of a few novices.  Many of the votes are from distinct IP addresses belonging to teachers that have never edited an article before.  Besides, the votes are not a popularity contest, but a consensus opinion.   kgrr  talk 21:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My biggest complaint above is not "shades of OR" but rather "essay". And not all of the SPAs in here are IPs. Hairhorn (talk)
 * The definition of an essay is vague. It is usually a personal point of view. The article should be devoid of personal view since all of the sentences that created synthesis between articles has been removed (unless we removed missed one or two).  Can you now point to anything that provides synthesis?  kgrr  talk 10:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. What on earth is the proposed topic for an encyclopedia article here?  This is a vague, rambling review essay, without any apparent or even arguably encyclopedic central topic.  It seems to aspire to, and one day might be, OR-by-synthesis, but as it stands the article fails even to achieve that, since that would require it to synthesize its sources into a coherent topic.  And while I'm loath to make the accusation, the large number of single-use accounts in this AfD seems to indicate a possible violation of WP:MEAT. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. If you want to accuse me of sockpuppetry, go ahead.  I know you are wrong.  And I hope you get banished for making false accusations.  I have been editing under my nick for a long time.  I'm open as to who I am.  I don't need to hide behind sock puppets or ask my friends to edit anything for me. kgrr  talk 10:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa there, kgrr. I didn't accuse you of meatpuppetry, as your good-faith editing speaks for itself; this hostile defensive reaction is completely uncalled for.  However, it still seems very likely that the large number of single-purpose accounts here is the result of someone canvassing for "votes."  What alternative explanation do you propose for the sudden emergence of all these brand-new AfD voters, on this topic alone, who evince little familiarity with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and make few arguments relevant to Wikipedia's deletion criteria?  -- Rbellin|Talk 19:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rbellin, you said "And while I'm loath to make the accusation, the large number of single-use accounts in this AfD seems to indicate a possible violation of WP:MEAT." There are a lot of teachers that have run into the AfD notice because "Transformative Teacher Education" is a current topic in education reform, especially since six whole schools in Rhode Island are being fired because the kids are not learning there although the teachers are following the lesson plans, rubrics and administering the so-called standardized tests to all the school kids.  When they come to the article and see that it's slated for deletion, and they read something that draws together what "Transformational Teacher Education" is, they are going to naturally reply with their opinion which is solicited by the AfD tag.  However, the details of the policy are not clearly defined.  Naturally, many of these teachers have never edited a Wikipedia article before and thus I would not expect them to know about AfD battles.
 * The reason I feel a bit defensive here is because I have been showing them the tools to edit this article, empowering them to put the information out there. I assure you I have not rallied anyone for votes on this AfD discussion.  I am also very familiar with AfD battles, because I regularly seek out article tagged with AfD that are worth saving and rescue them.  Just look through my history and my track record.  I have seen several friends that have done the same thing get ousted from Wikipedia due to similar accusations.  The last thing I want is to be accused of WP:MEAT. Is anyone rallying the AfD troops to descend on this article?  Where are they all coming from? It seem like the deck is being stacked the other way, too.  kgrr  talk 01:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not sure what you're trying to say about "rallying the AfD troops"; as far as I can see, all the delete !votes here seem to be coming from longstanding Wikipedians, while many of the keep !votes (other than your own!) appear to be single-purpose users. I do appreciate and respect that you're putting some effort into the cleanup and rescue of this article!  Still, I have to say that, even at this late date, the article doesn't have a single clearly stated topic, but remains instead a rambling, incoherent essay-like discussion of various apparently unconnected facets of teacher education with no perceptible central encyclopedic subject. And, even putting this aside, I don't see how, even in the best case with a more clearly defined topic, it would ever be able to become anything more than OR-by-synthesis.  -- Rbellin|Talk 07:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a long-standing Wikipedian, for more than 5 years. So therefore *not* all of the longstanding Wikipedians are united about deleting this article.
 * Yes, and many of the rest of the users, IPs and named accounts that are for keeping the article are new editors. What else they have in common is that they are educators that have probably used Wikipedia a lot, but have not really ever had the motivation of editing an article until crisis hits - like an AfD.  But simply because they are recently involved does not mean that they are meat puppets or that their contribution to the consensus opinion can be ignored.
 * We agree in that the lead need a bit more clean-up. It needs to introduce the topic for the lay person.  Certainly this needs to be put on the to-do list for the article. I just have not learned enough of the overall topic to write more of a lead.  kgrr  talk 10:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a synthesis. I too have looked at many of the sources. It is just a buzz-word for deconstructionism in teacher education. --Bejnar (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - You say you looked at "many" of the sources. Which ones?  So if I get you right, if "deconstructionism" is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text, you are saying that Transformational Teacher Education is a challenge to Teacher Education - there is none.  I really don't get how you can conclude that from any of the references.  Yes, Transformational Teacher Education is a challenge to today's methods of Educating Teachers, but you don't stop writing Wikipedia articles about Electric cars because they are a challenge to Gasoline cars, Personal computers because they are a challenge to mainframe computers, etc.  kgrr  talk 16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Rambling wall-of-text essay; search term that will never happen. PhGustaf (talk)
 * comment - Obviously you are not a teacher. kgrr  talk 16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep : After reading this article on Transformative Teacher Education, I feel that there is validity to the research discussed. It is a topic of importance and the contributions made to this article have begun important dialog. One can only hope that more research is done in the near future on this subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egm888 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Egm888, the reason this article should be deleted is that it is research, hence the references to WP:OR. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. (GregJackP (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment - GregJackP I'm sorry, but you don't seriously know what you are talking about. Here is what Wikipedia says in WP:OR: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. All material added to articles on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed in the text. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. This Wikipedia article is not original research according to this definition. No one working on this article conducted any experiments, etc.  Nor is it looking at the Primary research reports and drawing conclusions from it.  It is complete with references to other people's Primary research (the experiments) and  Secondary research (people who have done the original work and have published their own opinions, experiences, arguments or conclusions).  If there were any elements of synthesis that don't belong in a Wikipedia article, collectively, I and several teachers that I don't know personally have removed them.  If there are any that we have missed, please, let's remove them instead of deleting the article.  If I don't for some reason understand the difference between WP:OR/Primary research, Secondary research, and tertiary sources please let's talk about it, because my understanding of this apparently is very different from yours.  kgrr  talk 00:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - kgrr, you make my case for me with this quote from the policy: "This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." That is what this article is - see WP:OR and also see WP:SOAP. (GregJackP (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment - GregJackP, I agree with this policy completely. There are two kinds of WP:SOAP: WP:OR], which it's not and [[WP:SYNTH.  The statements that draw together the what various researchers have said into an opinion can and have been removed.  If there are more left, let's remove them.  kgrr  talk 12:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Leonardnielsen (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)LeonardLeonardnielsen (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP I am an educator. I am not the author of the article.  Transformative Teacher Education is similar to "critical pedagogy,"  in that it is a concept developed through a body of research and writing.  I have read the article carefully.  It is not original research.  When first posted it had some phrases which seemed like an essay but those have been removed.  I have done some editing to enhance the citations.  I think it is a good and important article
 * Comment: This article originated as a massive textdump from the single-purpose User:Transformingteachereducation, with the following signature-like line at the end: The following people contributed to this wikispace on transformingteachereducation: Veneschia Bryant Jeffrey Burris ThyJuan Harris Eddy McLachlan LaVoreen A. McPherson Kathryn Mendoza Tamiquia Simon. This led me to Google, which turned up transformingteachereducation.wikispaces.com, a Wiki-hosting site from which the bulk of the article appears to have been cut-and-pasted.  Also, several of the single-purpose-account participants in this AfD have account names (or have otherwise signed their posts here) matching usernames on that Wikispace site and/or in the article's original signature.  Therefore, though I suspect this material has been copied to Wikipedia with its creators' permission, it seems to me clear that this material was not written as an encyclopedia article (this may explain its lack of any single coherent encyclopedic topic).  It also seems to me that its creators are participating here under several accounts and IPs, without making their relation to the material clear, and without following even basic Wikipedia policies like "don't sign articles" (much less demonstrate a grasp of WP:SYNTH).  Might I suggest, based on this evidence, that this non-encyclopedic essay already has a good home elsewhere on the Internet, and Wikipedia is not a general-purpose Wiki host? -- Rbellin|Talk 07:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Ok ... so a bunch of educators got together and edited sections of a bigger topic called "Transformative Teacher Education". They used a wiki to do this somewhere else. So what.  They don't come with 5-8 years of Wikipedia experience and with tons of experience with Wikipedia policy.  Help them along instead of destroying their work.  The topic is very valid to educators, and it is very coherent.  The article simply lacks the lead to tie it all together for you.  Check out the article Transformative learning.  It has similar problems.  Are you going to rush out there and delete it now?  Personally, I think you are bent on deleting another article and are grasping at straws to justify your reasoning (rather than having an open mind towards correcting this one).  kgrr  talk 10:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I find it disingenuous that one of the main authors of the article on the Transforming Teacher Education wiki above comes to Wikipedia, comments about looking up the references and states that the article is not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, without declaring their own role in the creating the original article. At the very least, it calls into question whether the article is being presented with a WP:NPOV.  The article is advocating for change, violating WP:SOAP.  It is not appropriate for Wikipedia. (GregJackP (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment - First, no one has proven that any of the original authors are indeed working on this article now. And now there you make pretty strong accusation.  I find this rather offensive.  Why don't you judge the article where it is *now* and see for yourself if the material in the article meets WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV.  If there are problems with those kids of issues, we can correct them.  kgrr  talk 13:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The table you posted below shows exactly what I was talking about - Kat in FL participated in the creation of the article at the wikispaces site, then participated in the editing of the article here at Wikipedia, and voted on it above. All of this is permissible, but the way that she phrased her comment here is as if she were an uninterested party instead of one of the authors of the article.  Leonardnielsen stated his involvement in editing the article up front, and then stated his rationale for keeping the article, which is the way that it should occur.  There are a couple of other editors that can be connected with both the original article and the current WP article, for the sake of openness, they should declare those interests. The article still has problems, including promoting a change in the way that teachers are selected and trained.  If taken to a WP:NPOV approach, the criticisms of this approach would be addressed, which has not happened.  (GregJackP (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I took down the table, it's really not fair to people. Kat_in_FL never made comments about synthesis or original research.  Read her comments again.  Egm888 may also be one of the original authors.  He also had no idea about the policies behind synthesis or original research were.  But instead of harping on who did what, who is one of the original authors, who needs a red mark on their forehead etc, let's talk about the issues that need to be taken care of.  Here is what I'm hearing so far:
 * 1) The lead needs improvement. I am gathering journal papers and valid secondary papers that define Transformative Teacher Education.  The problem I'm having with the lead is that the various scientists don't exactly agree (as is stated in the lead already) what exactly TTE really is.  Perhaps we can have some help of the educators, which I hope we have not offended away from Wikipedia.  I seriously hope they stay and learn.  Unfortunately AfDs seen to often get painful.
 * 2) "promoting a change in the way that teachers are selected and trained." Is this a general problem or in a specific paragraph?
 * 3) The article needs to be checked for WP:NPOV.

kgrr talk 14:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - To be WP:NPOV one would have to include the criticism by Hill and Boxley of Transformative Teacher Education being a proposal that advocates a "Marxist and ecosocialist manifesto" for teaching, JCEPS:Vol 5, No 2 (2007) - this is apparently a controversial subject, and as currently written does not begin to meet WP standards. (GregJackP (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment - OK fair enough. 1) You seem to agree.  2) I heard no response, so it sounds like the WP:SOAP and WP:SYNTH issues are gone.  and 3) You did find an additional critic whose words need to be included.  Thanks.  I also think we agree that it is a valid and broad subject with international appeal.  And, yes, the subject may be controversial, but that is no reason to delete the article.  At least we seem to be gaining some consensus instead of throwing accusations around.  But I can't do all of the work.  Someone will need to read the Hill and Boxley article and will include their criticism into the article into the right places.  Unless there are further objections, I think we have a list of what needs to be done to rescue this article from here.  kgrr  talk 23:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I still believe that WP:SOAP applies - the article advocates for a change in the way teachers are trained; WP:SYNTH also applies - the intro states that there are several different approaches which the article combines into one approach, with no reference provided to support that combined the differing approaches. I don't think the article can make that leap without a major re-write that clearly outlines each individual approach separately (which it does not do at the present time) and lays out the objections of other education experts.  At the present time, the article should still be deleted. (GregJackP (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment I know this is a big leap of faith, but there are many articles in Wikipedia that are about advocating a change and not actually advocating the change. E.g. Health care reform in the United States, Pickens Plan, Carbon offset, Carbon credit, and Race to the Top just to mention a few.  The article is *about* various transformative proposals on how teachers could be trained, but it is really not urging people to follow the various transformative proposals. Just because an article is about change, does not make it WP:SOAP.
 * Second, the article is *not* combining any of the approaches with a synthesis. In fact, the approaches are laid-out in different paragraphs that are not being tied together into a synthesis or a conclusion.  kgrr  talk 01:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * COMMENTS - just a few things I need to get off my chest...I feel they are appropriate in light of what has been said above about me...but if they ARE NOT...feel free to remove them...
 * 1 - GregJackP stated this article was a “synthesis of the sources” & “not accurately representing the material” & “various points were aggregated to advance the position presented in the article” because he has “looked up several (not all) of the references”...I responded that “I have also looked up some of the sources from this article and information that I found that was in the wikipedia entry did match some points presented in those sources. I think the problem is more an issue of lack of specific referencing”.I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROBLEM WITH MY COMMENT IS…IT IS COMPLETELY TRUE…I DID LOOK UP REFERENCES, AND THEY WERE ACCURATE…I DO THINK THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE ARTICLE WAS THE LACK OF IN-LINE REFERENCES…WHICH IS WHAT I STATED REPEATEDLY TO THE AUTHOR PRIOR TO THEM POSTING IT ON WIKIPEDIA
 * 2 - DustFormsWords requested that I “provide some specific examples or quotes showing that the article correctly represents the sources?”...I responded by providing a list of what I know was accurate because I was the one who had presented that information, as well as checking some information that sounded like items presented in this article without citations by other people…I also went in and put some of the references in that should have been there
 * 3 - GregJackP stated that I was being “disingenuous” because I am “one of the main authors of the article on the Transforming Teacher Education wiki”....I NEVER SAID THAT I WAS NOT A CONTRIBUTOR TO THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE ARTICLE…NO BODY ASKED ME…I DID NOT STATE THAT I BUMPED INTO THE ARTICLE WHILE MOSEYING AROUND THE WIKIPEDIA
 * 4 - GregJackP stated that I said “the article is not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR”...I DID NOT STATE THAT OR ANYTHING ELSE OF THAT NATURE…I SIMPLY POINTED OUT THAT THE INFORMATION THAT I LOOKED-UP WAS ALL ACCURATE…WHICH IS STILL THE CASE
 * 5 - GregJackP stated that I had claimed the article was “not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, “without declaring” my “own role in the creating the original article” ... NOT TRUE…I NEVER SAID THE ARTICLE WAS NOT WP ANYTHING…THEREFORE THE WHOLE POINT GREGJACKP WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS RATHER IRRELIVENT…MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD READ COMMENTS BY OTHERS MORE CAREFULLY PRIOR TO MAKING FALSE…AND RUDE STATEMENTS
 * 6 - FURTHER I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT I NEVER CLAIMED NOT TO BE A CONTRIBUTOR TO THE ORIGINAL WIKISPACE ARTICLE…THE ARTICLE WAS PUT UP ON WIKIPEDIA BEFORE THE ISSUES I HAD POINTED OUT WITH THE ORIGINAL (NAMELY THE LACK OF IN-LINE REFERENCES) WERE ADDRESSED…AND I STATED IN MY ORIGINAL COMMENT THAT I FELT THAT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED BY THE AUTHOR WHO PUT IT UP IN WIKIPEDIA…MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT I STILL CAN VOTE TO KEEP IT…AT THIS POINT MANY OTHERS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE ARTICLE AS WELL…DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEIR VOTE SHOULDN’T COUNT EITHER???
 * 7 - Just so you all know…the whole point of the wikispace was for a group of educators to work collectively to create an article for the wikipedia…a collaboration of minds to create an article with factual information that is not often presented collectively for the purpose of posting it to wikipedia…which we did…what a terrible thing...if that is against some wikipedia policy none of us were aware of it...
 * 8 - katt_in_FL is the tag I use everywhere...if I was concerned with being associated with the wikispace I would have picked something different...It is not like the wikispace was taken down...but as stated above...the whole point of the wikispace was to create this page in wikipedia...although some people seem to be bent of having it deleted no matter what the consensus Katt in FL (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)katt_in_FL
 * Comment I think we need to move forward from the accusations - he said / she said, etc. GregJackP and RBellin, please go back to the basic principle of assuming good faith WP:AGF.  All the false accusations have done so far is to agitate people that would have used their time to correct this article.  If you continue with it, I will have someone else put an end to it.  The editors of the initial article were simply collaborating to create a new Wikipedia article.  They did it in wikispace instead of using a sandbox somewhere.  On the other side, Katt in FL, I'm sorry to see that you have been angered by these accusations of meat puppetry and of various other allegations.  AfD debates can be difficult because some people that want to enforce the rules really don't understand them themselves.  We need to concentrate on improving the article and not get distracted by their behavior.  If it gets much worse, I will call them on it with an arbitration.  I have played this game too many times with the Wikipedia Thinkpol: Brooks–Iyengar algorithm - I'm supposed to give it a "Popular Science makeover".  Can I teach someone computer science by sound bytes? Hot stain - a new word to describe areas in the world where there is no more drinking water.  Promoting a new word ... Hey, you want to buy a new desert? Dean Willard - a behind the scenes politician running for state representative. ... etc. etc. one article at a time.  Stick with it.  I'm learning new issue after issue by rescuing good articles.  All of us: We need to let it go now and behave in a civil manner. WP:CIVIL.   kgrr  talk 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree that we need to focus on the article and not personalities, however I stand by my comments in this AfD discussion. I'm sorry that Kat in FL was offended by my comments, it was not my intent, but the points still are valid - I believe that she should have declared her interest.  I still assumed good faith due to her being new to WP, which is why I did not refer this to the noticeboard.  I would have thought that you would also AGF for those of us that have problems with the article as written.  If you wish to call for an arbitration, please do so, I have no worries about what I have posted or the concerns I have raised, but I would hope that you are willing to look at the issues of concern instead of what appear to be (but I hope are not) an effort to shut down conversation on the issues.  I still believe that the article has problems, specifically in promoting a position to change teacher education in a way that is a synthasis of the various articles cited.  Statements such as "it is argued" and "it is not reasonable to assume" without presenting the counter-argument do not present a neutral point of view, but instead merely advocate for the changes in teacher education that seem to be preferred by one side of the argument.  It is still my position that the article as currently written is not appropriate for Wikipedia. (GregJackP (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment - GregJackP, Thank you for the apology. My warning on making false accusations and becoming uncivil still stand.  I will take it to arbitration if it gets out of hand.  OK ... So we agree to disagree on the WP:SOAP / WP:SYNTH issue.  Again, a soapbox is usually opinion without references and synthesis is opinion with references bound together with conclusions.  I have worked through the article to remove concluding paragraphs and sentences.  I have also worked the article through to question weasel phrases such as "some experts", "experts say", "it is argued", etc.  I missed one statement with a "it is not reasonable to assume" in the teaching methods paragraph.  I have marked it with a  tag.  The synthesis will have to come from a secondary source (which is allowed to do this) or be deleted.  All that needs to be done here is to properly attribute the synthesis to remove the POV.  Depending on how severe the issue is, we may need to find someone that disagrees with the conclusion that is being drawn.  However, I don't think that's an issue in this case.   Since you have EBSCO Host and JSTOR access, could you please look up the Tatto1997 article and tell me what her definition of Transformative Teacher Education is for the introduction.  It's a widely quoted article on TTE.  Ditto for GreenmanDieckmann2004.  kgrr  talk 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am an educator in Western WA of disadvantaged kids. I think the article reads well and brings out a lot of facts in one article about Transformative Teacher Education.  I agree with kgrr.  It has a couple of flaws that can be corrected.  I have never edited an article before, but I would like to vote keep. 209.206.252.239 (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.