Talk:Sidney Greenbaum

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent deletion[edit]

There is no need for an editor to delete information just because they personally cannot access it. If they want to see the DNB text, they can ask at the WP:LIBRARY for a copy to be emailed to them. Having checked the DNB, it is obvious this information is correct, so there is no need for the one man censorship mission. - 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:F1B0:8102:17:53A9 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make false accusations. That is not the reason the for deletion. Wikipedia has imperatives of due weight. There are over 400 scholarly book references on Greenbaum, and as many journal articles. Those are his reasons for notability and the raison d'etre for his ODNB entry, and in turn his WP page. He is not notable for these alleged offenses. They have not been covered by reliable hard news sources in any newspaper of any worth. I have requested the ODNB entry. The article on Greenbaum by Bas Aarts and Geoffrey Alderman was published in 2004. Greenbaum had died in 1996, so presumably, the convictions happened at least a quarter century ago. And you have woken up now? And after waiting between 14 and 25 years, you can't wait a few days more? Seriously? I've requested time while I figure out the issues here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no issues for you to figure out. The information is in the source, and you should not delete it just because you can’t read it (it’s a step entirely against policy or guideline, so don’t do it again). And please see WP:NPA and don’t throw insults at other editors – that is also against policy. - 213.205.194.77 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are. You cannot add several sentences to a short stub. It is undue. I have read the ODNB entry. I have talked to an admin. In a longish ODNB article, there is one sentence specifically mentioning the assault charges, "In 1990 Greenbaum resigned the Quain chair at University College following his conviction in London of a number of charges of sexual assault on young boys." followed by, "He was able to continue directing the Survey of English Usage." Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpted from my user talk page post: I've done a pretty thorough search of the sources; I've talked to people on Wikipedia more knowledgeable about policy than I; the bottom line is that the ODNB article, of five-page length, is pretty much the only acceptable WP:RS, and that devotes one sentence to the topic.

As for what is reliable in WP, I think a news report or retrospective—but not an opinion piece, blog, column or letter to the editor—in an internationally known newspaper (The Times, Guardian, Independent, Irish Times, NYTimes, ...) or special-topic supplements (such as THES or the Chronicle of Higher Education) but not a small-market newspaper or newsletter, would be a good start. I have to note though that if those sources had references, I would have seen them by now. Publicly available records of the judgments are usually no good as they are considered WP:Primary sources; the judgment has to be reported in the press, or a book, etc, to be reliable. To claim in addition that there was a cover-up would require several such sources clearly stating the same. This is the predicament here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Copied here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]