Talk:L. J. Hanifan/Draft

Acknowledgements

This seems like an appropriate place to publicly acknowledge the many contributions to this article by Michael C. Johanek at the University of Pennsylvania School of Education. Although my name appears on most of the edits of this piece, Mike has been supplying me with a steady steam of new information on Hanifan beyond what was originally available in the West Virginia Archives. Also not to be forgotten is Robert Putnam's original reminder to a world that had long ago left memory of Hanifan's contributions behind in his book, Bowling Alone. Had it not been for Bob, Mike would not be digging and I would not be posting!

Roger Lohmann 15:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A Powerful Medium

When I first began this particular project (the entry was created on January 18, 2008), there were NO Google hits on Mr. Hanifan. (I know. I checked.) This morning (2-18-09) Google notes 5,120 hits. Although such growth is extremely modest by internet standards - some sites have attracted millions of users in that amount of time - it is, nevertheless very gratifying to see the impact that this one small posting has apparently had in bring back into public view the important contribution of a man completely lost to history. And, of course, the irony is that in the Google listing, the Wikipedia entry, taken lock, stock and barrel from CZ and only remaining current when it is updated from here, ranks above it in the search! Go figure.

Roger Lohmann 15:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes good things happen! As of today (10-3-09) there are 9,930 hits on Hanifan, and this CZ article has replaced the Wikipedia copy at the top of the stack! (A very minor listing on my personal web server has moved into second, with W coming in 3rd!

Roger Lohmann 20:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Advancing this article

Since the social capital article is being considered for Approval, what would be needed to bring its parent into approval readiness? Are there wikilinks that should exist in both articles? Are Hanifan's works clearly linked to their effects? Howard C. Berkowitz 23:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The links are there to and from Social Capital, but if there are others that should be put in place, I'd be in favor. Roger Lohmann 00:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is probably time to move this one to Approval; this is virtually everything that is known about Hanifan, and I'm not aware of anything in the pipelines, but if something shows up we can do a revision. Roger Lohmann 00:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Article's Title

***Note: This discussion refers to the previous title of this article. It has since been moved to L. J. Hanifan.***

Hi Roger, shouldn't this article be Moved to L.J. Hanifan? We don't have P.G. (Pelham Grantville) Wodehouse or William T. (Big Bill) Tilden or any other article to my knowledge that is titled like this one.... Hayford Peirce 23:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that if the P.G. Wodehouse and Big Bill Tilden articles aren't titled that way, they should be! How about if we make a redirect page with your preferred name?Roger Lohmann 00:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, redirects are necessary, of course, but I just don't think *any* other articles in CZ are titled the way this one is. Hayford Peirce 01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I will not approve this article with this name. Maybe Matt will, but, if so, I think he would be mistaken to do so. Hayford Peirce 02:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Naming_Conventions

you will find TWO reasons why the title of this article is not acceptable:

Punctuation. Do not use punctuation in an article title. Dashes, hyphens, colons, semi-colons, parentheses, periods, and commas should be avoided in article titles unless excepted. There are four exceptions to this policy: (1) a disambiguation title should use parenthesis (see below); (2) geographical place names (e.g., Anchorage, Alaska); (3) artistic works shall be rendered exactly as produced (e.g., William Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom!, Willa Cather's O Pioneers!); (4) Initials if used as common name (e.g., J. R. R. Tolkien). Note also that initials are spaced (we prefer J. R. R. Tolkien to J. R. R. Tolkien).

It has parentheses in the title, and there are no spaces between the initials.

This, in my judgment, is not a question of Editorial judgment -- it is a question of the Constabulary enforcing the guidelines. Hayford Peirce 03:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Hayford, it is not up to a constable to question the judgment of an editor. If there are other editors that agree with you, then they can pull the approval tag if they want, or to work through the appeal process if necessary. Neither of those options, however, stops the process of approval as long as procedures are beig followed. As an author, you can voice your concerns as you have and I expect that an editor will give you his rationale. If it appears to counter CZ policy or guidelines, then the EC would be the place to take it up. Otherwise, I don't have any reason not to approve an article that three fine editors endorse. D. Matt Innis 03:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hayford, I see your response that you made during our edit conflict and respect your interpretation of whether a constable should enforce the naming conventions. You make a valid argument that needs consideration. Let's take this elsewhere as it has nothing to do with this article, but more to do with constable authority. D. Matt Innis 03:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have obviously disqualified myself as a Constable in dealing with this issue, so I will address it simply as a Citizen. I have just scrolled down through the list of the first 1500 most viewed articles out of the 14,000 CZ articles (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:PopularPages), which represents more than 10% of our articles, and I have not found *one* article entitled the way Roger wants to do. Yes, parentheses *are* used, very rarely, but only as a disambiguation feature, ie, Sex (activity), Foot (unit), and Asphalt (petroleum), to pick three out of about ten of them. There *may* be biographical article entitled the way Roger wants to do it, but I think it is incumbent upon *him* to locate them and show them to us as examples that we can follow. Surely we don't want to repeat the great Professor Jensen controversy about the correct nomenclature of titles! Hayford Peirce 04:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you refer, sir, to the Jensen, Professor the Great, controversy? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Es, y Hayford Peirce 15:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not unwilling to go along with the naming change (i.e., L.J. Hanifan as the article name, with the full name in the lede and assorted redirects. Even with the present comatose EC and lack of charter, however, I believe it would have been more appropriate to ask to have three History or Politics editors make a determination on this, rather than a Constable saying what he would or would not do. Roger had done the titling and I hadn't thought that much about it -- perhaps it was a West Virginia thing.

A better way, I think, would to have been to raise the issue on the History Workgroup talk page -- not the Forum, because that doesn't lend itself to a permanent archive of decisions. Russell did start on a style guide, and the three of us have been corresponding about citation issues. My personal feeling is that as long as multiple workgroups can have jurisdiction on an article, it may default, for example, to the EC to set the CZ citation style when two workgroups have different citation conventions (e.g., history and psychology). Howard C. Berkowitz 06:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Having a long while back worked on the naming policy, I must concur with Hayford on this point. My preference is to have the article titled as Hanifan called himself in life and in print. If he used L. J. Hanifan, then that is an acceptable article title to me. But note the spacing of initials. If we need disambiguation (which I do not think we need) then it could be L. J. (Lyda Judson) Hanifan or L. J. (L. Judson) Hanifan or some other combination of clarification. To be explicit: as a history work group editor I oppose approval using the current article title. I'm willing to do the page move, if we can reach agreement about a new title. Russell D. Jones 15:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the entire Original Research/Original Synthesis issue won't be solved here, but in the new Editorial Council (one hopes). Nevertheless, I have an intuition that there is a significant difference between Original Research based, for example, on personal laboratory testing, and Original Research/Synthesis based on accessible primary sources. In a number of my articles that, I hope will be in the Approval queue, I consider it Synthesis to put several, potentially competing, primary source excerpts side-by-side without expressing a personal conclusion. Yes, I know the WP rule was secondary only, but I'm not sure that is a wise one in all disciplines.

Roger, for the record, I would like you to endorse as Editor/Author, even if Russell isn't yet comfortable in doing so. No, Constabulary, I'm not suggesting a two-editor approval, but simply to document that the author approves. While it unfortunately doesn't always neatly fit a given article, the three of us do correspond on general History and Politics issues.

I will defer to Roger in terms of what the man called himself. The question of disambiguation is always relevant. When I was at Georgetown, as a technician in physical chemistry of proteins and occasional nondegree student, there was a medical student named Howard B.Berkowitz. We were always getting our correspondence, and, more importantly, our checks confused; that's when I started using my middle initial. Today, however, it is possible to get "my" medical school transcript from Georgetown. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I'm in complete agreement about letting Roger resolve the issue about naming as he is the expert on this subject; I'd like to see our unofficial policy followed. Russell D. Jones 15:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

When I noticed this article in the Recent changes, my immediate reaction was to question its title. Since for the title the name should be used as used by the person himself, it can only be L.J. Hanifan or Lydia Judson Hanifan, not both. If disambiguation is necessary it can be done by adding some distinguishing description but only after the name (L.J. Hanifan (...)).

As for spaces after periods: There has to be a common rule, simply for practical reasons (even though, personally, I prefer the version without spaces). I would allow variants like "A B Someone", "AB Someone", "ab someone", etc., even "A 'Bee' SomeOne" or "P!nk", if this version was consistently used by that person.

But the question of the title need not delay approval, because the approved cluster can also be moved later. --Peter Schmitt 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying Approval status

This article is set to be approved as is (including the title) as long as Howard continues to endorse the version in the template when the date of approval is reached. Another editor may remove the template if they feel it necessary.

I also note that Hayford is acting as an author on this page and has recused himself from any constable activity (for this article only) as he chooses to take a side on a content issue.

My interpretation continues to be, as Howard suggests, that a title change is an editorial decision and is under the purview of the Workgroup and then Editorial Council. Any remedies would have to follow the Editorial path, including appeals. I am quite confident that CZ mechanisms that are in place can allow the editors on this page the ability to make an appropriate decision after considering input from the variety of sources. D. Matt Innis 16:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I simply don't understand why the Constabulary would Approve an article whose title is clearly not within the guidelines. Even Editors can make mistakes, can't they? Didn't Larry, and *most* of the others who took place in various discussions over the last couple of years decide, just as the Guidelines state, that articles should be called by what they are most commonly known as? Ie, we have an article called, I hope, Babe Ruth. It is not called George Herman ("Babe") Ruth. Suppose that I, as a Sports Editor (laughable idea!) *insisted* that that was the way the article should be called. Was that particular baseball player *generally* known, to newspaper reporters, sports fans, and the general American public, as George Herman ("Babe") Ruth? I really don't think so! Just as I *seriously* doubt if Mr. Hanifan went through life introducing himself to people at cocktail parties and faculty meetings as, "Hello, there, I'm L.J. (Lyda Judson) Hanifan. So glad to meet you, and can I freshen your drink?" And I don't understand why the other Editors on this particular article simply don't take the bull by the horns and Move it to what should be the correct title, ie, L. J. Hanifan, with or without a space after the "L."? Hayford Peirce 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hayford. Constables have to ensure that rules and guidelines are honored. It is clearly not a matter of content to classify this title as "not according to the guidelines", at least as long as no Editor has explained why (with good arguments) guidelines should not be followed here. Probably even I, as a Citizen, could act and move the whole cluster (speedydeleting all redirects) with a reference to the guidelines in the edit summary. Having said this, I think that it is not important to start a dispute now and here because it can easily be repaired later. But would it cause a dispute? --Peter Schmitt 19:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter for the constabulary but an editorial issue and the history editors have been discussing this all day. We have the matter in hand and are reaching consensus. I feel that having the history editors on board and acting in concert is the best way to avoid dispute. Yes, one of us could move it and clean up the site according to the method that Peter suggests, but to reach approval we'll need the editors on board. This has more than anything else solidified in my mind the value of separate authorities, separate powers, and separate committees in the CZ management structure (MC and EC, constab and editors, etc.). I have not seen any behavioral issues arise in this discussion nor any dispute that would call for constabulary action. If the article does not meet CZ editorial standards, it's for the editors and the approvals manager (?) to stop approval and address as they are responsible for the editorial integrity of the site, not the constab. Of course, it doesn't help that the EC hasn't approved any of the editorial policies (e.g., Naming Conventions) that we're discussing. I guess they're just "guidelines," so, technically, there isn't any "rule" here to enforce. I guess another way to solve the issue would be to re-write CZ:Naming Conventions so that L.J. (Lyda Judson) Hanifan is an acceptable article title. Russell D. Jones 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not all of us here move at the speed of Howard, some of us don't actually do things here for sometimes ... Months! .... Russell D. Jones

I'm no expert on the topic, but my thoughts are that there should be consistency amongst all articles on things such as naming. The Naming Conventions are there, and do apply in this case. You have used the words 'L.J. Hanifan' (rather than 'L.J. (Lyda Judson) Hanifan') within the article and in the references so this seems to be the common usage. If Lyda Judson Hanifan is the common one, move it there. Create a redirect from the alternate one. Let's face it nobody is going to type into the search bar 'L. J. (Lyda Judson) Hanifan', and having one article amongst hundreds with an unusual title seems odd at best, unprofessional at worst. --Chris Key 20:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are we fighting here?

This is very simple. What's with the arguments, fellows?

Matt said: This article is set to be approved as is (including the title) as long as Howard continues to endorse the version in the template when the date of approval is reached. Another editor may remove the template if they feel it necessary.

Well, no, you can't do that. This title is outside policy, full stop. I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about whether or not that policy is correct. This is policy as it now stands, (after MUCHO arguments, I remind you all) and that's what we must go with.

We cannot afford to waste energy arguing about every matter that has already been decided.

I feel a fight brewing that alas, that, like too many of our arguments, will go way past the point of diminished returns. I have been fortunate enough to have had sensible people pull me up when I've gotten involved in some of those, and I'd like to return the favour.

Please, Howard, just move this article. Seems to me that would be the most peaceful soloution. Or some other editor from one of the approving workgroups just move this article.

If people want to change the policy, go to it. But that needs a different time and place, let's leave it out of article approvals, please.

Aleta Curry 19:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that nothing "has already been decided." See above. Russell D. Jones

Puzzled...I've offered to move it and update the approval; I simply wanted Roger to give me the definitive title to use. He's the expert on what Hanifan called himself. For all I know, he introduced himself as LJ (Lyla Judson); that's a detail I cannot verify and trust Roger to provide.

As far as "policy", however, there is a difference between policy and rule. Three editors from the relevant workgroup are actively communicating on how to solve the problem. I'm not blocking anything, but waiting for information. As far as I see, broad rules are being followed by the people (plural) designated to carry them out. It's one thing for Constables to be dealing with titles when there is no Editor or just one, but three are working on the problem.

When I act as an Author and not an Editor, I make that clear to start. I do not announce I will enforce something that is being handled. Sorry, Aleta, it feels like you are looking for a fight that isn't happening. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just an aside: After moving the article, there is no need to update the link because the permanent link will still point to the moved version. --Peter Schmitt 22:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

a question for the historians here

If this title sets a precedent with the History Workgroup, does this mean we can then look forward to an article someday about A. J. P. (Alan John Percival) Taylor, surely what he was known by at High Table? Hayford Peirce 21:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We haven't even scratched postnomials, and that isn't just British. I knew an orthopedist named Myron Davis, who was invariably addressed, at least on the public address system, as Dr. M.D. Davis, M.D. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Patience is in order, I think. The history work group hasn't done anything yet regarding this article's title except host this discussion. I have voiced my disapproval of the title. Matt has informed us of the procedure for stopping an approval: all I have to do is remove the nomination from the metadata page. We have until June 21 before the article is scheduled to be approved. Right now, I don't feel that I need to stop the process of approval as we are in the process of resolving the title. There's plenty of time for us to work out what this article should be called and move it to an appropriate place. Russell D. Jones 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hayford, would Table, High be in California, in a smoky but tobacco-free place? Howard C. Berkowitz 09:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Toward Approval

This version of this article is endorsed by User:Howard C. Berkowitz in a single editor approval and is set for June 21, 2010. Please feel free to continue to make changes as necessary and if still agreeable to Howard, he can update the version number to the version that he can endorse. Unless the template is removed by any editor, this article will be locked on June 21, 2010. D. Matt Innis 02:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I put in the most recent version. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Howard, you used the diff version of the article rather than the permanent link to the current version. Using the diff version makes it difficult to tell if you endorse the last version or the one before. I agree it's a slight difference and I figured that was the version you wanted. D. Matt Innis 03:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)

I am not convinced that the current version, with all its quotes and comma-separated statements, qualifies as the coherent narrative that CZ is striving for. --Daniel Mietchen 12:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in agreement with Daniel's comment, however. I think the article reads fine given some editing; I don't mind the quotes. Some of the comma-separated parenthetical comments hung me up, but I rewrote them; please review my edits. And the approval process is intended to get eyes and hands on the article to improve its quality. I should also point out this is a piece of original research done by Roger as there was no online reference article about Hanifan prior to this one and, as noted in the footnotes, much of the research was done through primary sources. Russell D. Jones 15:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New edits

Howard, I made a couple of copy edits this morning and formatted the references into a consistent style. Could you please review and if they meet with your approval could you update the metadata to point to the current version? Thanks.

Roger, could you please review the references to see that they meet your approval? We may as well link to your user page, too.

This article will never fly at WP, WP:NOR. Russell D. Jones 12:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You may complicate their copying it (as they did the earlier one)! Roger A. Lohmann 13:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Darn! Unless, you want it to colonize. If so, please correct my changes. Jones 13:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP will be unable to copy it? If a thousand swords arise to carry your words away, belike the price of a jackal's meal is more than they can pay.

No, I haven't read them yet, but a heartfelt comment seemed in order. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved

Is this OK with everyone? Roger and Russell, do you want to sign the template? Howard C. Berkowitz 09:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine Howard. As you are aware, through email confirmation from Roger in a discussion with all three editors in which I was cc'd, Roger confirmed his approval of the change:

• I have no problem with the name change to “L. J. Hanifan”. (Preferably with a space; L.J. with no space strikes me as almost as unconventional as the current name.

That's all I need for approval purposes. D. Matt Innis 12:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Howard. I'll attached my name as an approving editor to demonstrate my changed opinion (as from above) regarding the title. Russell D. Jones 12:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Approved Version 1.0

Good teamwork everyone. A good example of how the process should work! D. Matt Innis 14:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.