Talk:Gary Gruber

Untitled

One of the editors should review this 'article'- it's more like an ad.87.69.186.120 (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the prior comment. The most recent change I suggested, the mere change of titling Dr. Gruber as "a" leading authority on standardized tests and test preparation instead of "the" leading authority on standardized tests and test preparation, was changed by the same user who changes everything back on this particular page. While I cannot speak for the other reversions, this one is particularly distressing. User testpreptalk08 cites the reversion as defensible because "Numerous entities including hundreds of national newspapers school districts and state depts of education, National Public Television,have acknowledged Dr. Gruber as this." On common sense grounds, I beg to differ. No publication cites any authority as the "sole" or "only" authority. Standardized testing is a very large field, encompassing a large number of tests--such as the DAT, OAT, PCAT, etc--that Dr. Gruber has never written about, and is certainly not seen as an authority on. The same goes for test preparation, where a simple review of books sales data reveals that established test preparation companies such as Kaplan and Princeton Review regularly outsell Dr. Gruber's books in areas such as GMAT, GRE, SAT, and ACT. I assert that either the "the" reference in the first paragraph must be changed, or the scope of the reference must be changed.

Transmissionelement (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree with the previous writer. I have been a newspaper editor for many years and with many newspapers and I have seen Dr. Gruber widely acknowledged in national papers, the national media and many other entities as the leading authority on standardized testing and test preparation. He has also been in the field for more than 35 years. Newseditor11 (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate the prior comment. However, please excuse me for being mildly skeptical, but the prior writer has no previous posting history, and the above note is his first ever post in any Wikipedia area. I find it odd that he chose Gary Gruber's Talk page as his first--and at this time--only post.

While I sense that I am perhaps speaking to the same person or organization as the frequent editor of Gary Gruber's main page, why don't we let the facts speak for themselves? As opposed to vague claims, please refer us to the national media articles which refer to Dr. Gruber as THE leading authority on standardized testing and test preparation. If any of the top 50 leading news dailies has made that precise reference, I will gladly surrender my position. If you cannot supply such a reference, I expect you will surrender yours. And please, no references to anything but a major 3rd party external reference, as that is your self-proclaimed basis for your position. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to write the previous writer but apparently he has no "user" page.I will be glad to send him some PDFs of complete pages of some actual clippings from major newspapers he talks about if I know where to send them. His statements are unfounded. Newseditor11 (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Please post the links here so others can review the material and make the decision...all major news sites have their archives online so that shouldn't be a problem.

As for a user page, like many WP users, I don't think of myself as that big of a deal, and I don't need a page. On another note, I am somewhat surprised that a "a newspaper editor for many years" somehow keeps a personal cache of PDFs regarding Gary Gruber. That sure seems quite convenient for the discussion at hand. Transmissionelement (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As an education editor, reporter and former school administrator, I keep all important material that either I have worked on or that I use for reference. I keep them as PDFs. Therefore, I have kept various articles by and about Dr. Gruber whose fascinating career I have been following for some time. I merely thought if you had a user name I would be kind enough to send you those PDFs through those means rather than through an e-mail. You apparently do not know much about newspapers—papers don’t archive every page of the paper, so if you want a particular story or article you most likely won’t be able to find it in the paper’s archives. For example, one of the PDFs I was going to send you was in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on Aug 25, 2008- Everyday Section-which cannot be found in the paper's archives. His "Brain Teasers" with the same citing ran for many weeks after and which also cannot be found in the archives. This was the quote in that particular paper introducing "Brain Teasers" by Gary Gruber: “Gary R. Gruber, Ph.D. is recognized as the leading authority on standardized tests and the originator of the critical thinking skills used to prepare for them. He has written more than 35 books with more than 7 million copies sold including the new 12th edition of Gruber’s Complete SAT Guide 2009 (Sourcebooks). A calendar Use It or Lose It 2009 will be published by Andrews McMeel in September.”

I have PDFs of other papers with similar quotes on Dr. Gruber citing him as the leading authority.

Newseditor11 (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Brain Teasers piece is not an article, but an item--like a comic strip--is supplied by the source and that is not directly edited by the paper itself. The introduction is not an unbiased news item, and it reads like the advertisment it is. Again, I question whether an editor would find a Brain Teasers piece important enough to keep a PDF of it at the ready.

However, it is clear to me that we are unlikely to agree on this issue, as minor as it is. So I suggest we call a truce to our discussion disagreement. Why don't we instead we take this item to the dispute resolution process by calling in a Third Opinion? I can also see a third party being needed to edit this entire page, especially the long lists of publications, which read more like an advertisement as many of them contain no links. Any objections? Transmissionelement (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I offered to send you PDFs of articles citing what you needed to see but don't know how to get them to you. You mentioned "If any of the top 50 leading news dailies has made that precise reference, I will gladly surrender my position. If you cannot supply such a reference, I expect you will surrender yours." Since you are not giving me an address for me to send you what you are asking for, that would satisfy your concerns, instead of spending so much time on such a minor point as you yourself mentioned, why don't we drop this whole issue.

Newseditor11 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not wish to have my email address made public, so why not just post them to a web page and provide a link? Pretty safe and simple. Frankly, now that I've begun to review the page in more depth, I'm under the strong impression that impartial editors would likely make significant changes, so perhaps we're just better off going that route. I'd make the changes myself, but I think the page history shows that a particular user is acting as a gatekeeper here and would revert those changes rather quickly. Transmissionelement (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

References were removed which might have made this sound like an advertisement. Examsource (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article still reads entirely like an advertisement/publicity blurb. I would advocate it being removed from Wikipedia (or at least revised via WP guidelines by a neutral source, which neither Newseditor11 nor Testprep08 clearly are). Irregulargalaxies (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything that seemed to have a publicity bent was removed--what is here now is merely factual information about Dr. Gruber. I have noticed on many many Wikipedia pages, the same type of information is presented- publications, career, career motivation, background. Examsource (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC).

Gatekeeper

Need some help on this page. Of the main editors--testprep08 and examsource--both appear to be the subject of the article, and attempt to revert any substantive revision. As editor Tenebrae noted, the article is slanted ("shameful"),and clearly being closely guarded by its gatekeeper. Need some serious changes but I'm not one who has the time to do it. Assistance? Transmissionelement (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Tried to change this page according to Wikipedia's guidelines--I don't know what else to do? Examsource

I would suggest looking more closely at what is being requested. Senior editor Tenebrae added those top notes in order to let everyone know what needed to change about this article in order for it to meet WP standards. What you have done here in this last revision is reinstate the long list of books, but that is not sufficient by itself. You are being asked to revise the language to reflect neutrality and to provide verifiable sources for the claims you make. For example, none of the statements in the bio are sourced--they are all just vague claims. An equal cause for concern was the style of the article. For example, the phrase "he longed for" was inappropriate. Your latest revision improves the language I think, but the article still reads like a list of items. Perhaps read WP:BETTER and WP:BIO, try a rewrite, and add references. In the meantime, I'm going to return the reference top note and slightly alter the text to correct an error then I'll let you have at it. Fair solution?Transmissionelement (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove the request for inline citations until you provide some. Removing the header request for citations without providing any verifiable ones makes me think that there are no independent references to Dr. Gruber. If so, the article should be deleted for failure to meet WP:N Transmissionelement (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Examsource/Blammersky/Gary--can you please provide some references to the rewrite? Right now the article is simply a set of unverified claims. Again, what is needed is not a list of publications or dates but verifiable, independent sources discussing you or your career. See WP:CS for more info. Until that is done, the References Needed note needs to go back on the article. I'm trying hard to work with you here, but you keep changing the text but not providing any sources when those are clearly needed. Thanks Transmissionelement (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2009 (UT)

I had not noticed this discussion page and appreciate what you said. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "verifiable independent sources discussing the career." I looked at other pages like Craig Ferguson and some other people and they seem to write in the same style without having to change anything. How would I write verifiable sources--could you give an example. Would appreciate this. (talk) 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To Blammersky: Please go to User talk:Blammersky where I have provided links to The 5 Pillars of Wikipedia. Please go also to the policy pages on Reliable Source, Verification, Citation and related policies from there. You appear to have made the same vanity edits under several registered names, so your efforts appear to be continued, deliberate reversions of other editors who adhere to Wikipedia policies.

As I noted on your talk page, I have already opened a sock puppet investigation. Until that is completed, and you have familiarized yourself with Wikipedia policies, I would ask and advise that you refrain from editing, or and admin will be asked to WP:BLOCK your IP. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm really stupid, but I have looked at the WP:CITE, etc and really donot see what in the material on the Gary Gruber page can be cited. When it says 35 books, I have listed the books but that wasn't acceptable. Do I list the books and have to put all the ISBN numbers in? Please--please tell me exactly how to verify the information. If t says Dr. Gruber worked with the San Francisco School District how would that be verified? I'm really at a loss--I want to work with you but really don't know what to do. (talk) 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You can start by signing your posts, using four tildes. See below, in the edit version of this page, on the line that begins with the pulldown box "Insert"; to the right on that line it says "Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~ Cite your sources: <ref></ref>"

If you're listing a bibliography, ISBN numbers are a good indicator of whether a book really exists, so yes, give title, publisher, year of publication and ISBN number.

The most significant policies, perhaps, in relation to this article are WP:BIO, WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI. -- Tenebrae (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I added citations -Is this o.k.? BlammerskyBlammersky (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've streamlined and wikified the article to make it more neutral and less promotional. It's still a single-source article, but that's less of a concern than the overall tone, which includes the hyping of minor biographical elements and writing about his presumed state of mind. I think it is clear that there's a high degree of probability that User:Blammersky, who has been blocked for a week for his blatant sockpuppetry, is the article subject himself. This is conflict of interest; I ask Blammersky to please read that bluelinked policy and to refrain from editing the article. Here is a rule of thumb: If the subject is notable, someone other than the subject will edit the article.

Finally, we ask that you cease attempting to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. It is a violation of several policies, and offensive to the nature of this encyclopedia. If you care about educating people, then you must know that Wikipedia articles, and the public, are best served by disinterested and unbiased third parties. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I included a bibliography of Dr. Gruber with citations with dates and publishers; tried to reduce resume feeling and news release flavor Paulstern (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Paulstern

None of this explains why you removed another editor's tags. You clearly are another sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Blammersky, trying to avoid the one-week editing block. I have alerted an admin of this. It is inappropriate to remove another editor's tags, it is inappropriate to edit your own article, and it is inappropriate to attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I frankly thought that I would help clarify what was needed and thought by doing this and removing the tags were appropriate. I am not a meatpuppet (as you call it) of this fellow Blamersky. I thought I was just helping 71.204.140.242 (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Paulstern

A Speedy Deletion notice has been placed on the talk page of the author

The History of this article indicates that it is probably a vanity article, and that it has failed to provide inline citations, secondary sources, and an NPOV. Most of these tags have been attached to the article for the better part of two years. This article fails to establish why the subject is relevant, and should be speedily deleted. I have provided notice to the author of this article on his talk page. Thomrenault (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Continuing Conflict of Interest Issues

A check of the history of this page and the Talk page shows a continuing problem with users such as [[1]] and [[2]]who appear to have a WP:COI. I'd prefer to avoid an edit war, but there are multiple statements being added in that are cited with references from the author's own writing (Example: "He is widely considered as the leading authority on standardized tests and the originator of the critical thinking skills used for them," with the reference being the self-supplied bio at [[3]]. That's just one example of many. I'm reverting the article again, and have placed a WP:COI notice on the user's talk page. Future changes from that same editing source should be viewed with concern. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)