Talk:Alfie Kohn

"Kohn’s article is misleading, does not accurately depict the available evidence on positive reinforcement, demeans children and practitioners, and—worst of all—may serve to limit the use of a powerful, evidence-based practice for facilitating children’s development." -- Phillip S. Strain and Gail E. Joseph, PhD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.95.82 (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Obviously you didn't scroll all the way to the bottom to see Kohn's rebuttal of Willingham. Not to mention the fact that Willingham essentially subscribes to behaviorist models that Kohn argues against.

Philip S. Strain and Gail E. Joseph are also both behaviorists. Again, it is not surprising that they disagree with Kohn considering the article states that behaviorists are among Kohn's critics.--QuiBobJinn (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh they are "behaviorists", I see. Seems that you like Kohn are guilty of logical fallacies like ad hominem and straw manning. I wanted some impartial information about Kohn, so went to wikipedia. The article was very non-impartial and full of assertions without solid references. I did some more searching around the internet and tried to make the wikipedia article more impartial and objective just for the benefit of others. T point out a few problems: (i) there is no evidence that Kohn was a certified high school teacher but the article makes it sound like he was, (ii) there is no evidence that he received an MA nor in what subject, (iii) it says he is an "independent scholar" but he is more of a popular writer (Is his "research" respected and discussed in peer reviewed academic journals?), etc. What is really lacking most is any reference to critics or a sense of how his writings have been received -- there is only the suggestion that the only people who disagree are conservative republicans and those scary behaviorists! In a quick google scholar search i found numerous articles written by academics in the relevant field criticizing his books and articles. Look I think he has some good ideas and he is a good writer (good at expressing his ideas in a clear understandable way) and he also seems to have an eye for spotting interesting empirical research -- but I'd still like to know what his credentials are and what people who actually do the empirical research think of his take on the research. It is easy to various empirical result and interpret them in a way that supports one's pre-theoretical view. That is always a danger. Anyway I am not going to keep editing the page to make it more objective. QuiBobJinn seems to be very vested in keeping the article one-sided. Just for the record I am neither a conservative nor a behaviorist! GunYoiGi5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.95.82 (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Kohn's website claims his next book, The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing, will be published in fall, 2006. -- Perspective 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

This page is almost entirely quotations and does not belong on Wikipedia. Unless serious changes are made, it should be nominated for deletion. I'd put up the appropriate template, but I don't know how to do it. If a more knowledgeable Wikipedian would do that, I'd really appreciate it.Emmett5 00:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't mean it needs deletion, just expansion. Alfie Kohn is a legitimately important figure in the world of education and parenting. Dave Walker 03:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good point, expansion is always better than deletion.-Emmett5 04:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed the paragraph starting with "There are two ways of viewing his books." as that was clearly opinion. The paragraph could be rewritten, but as I was trying, I felt it would be better to remove. Details about Kohn's major works probably should be put elsewhere, and editorials such as the aforementioned quote removed.

I also removed the obvious advert that was starting with "Don't have time to read the book?"

Finally, I just want to say that I came to look at this entry because I thought I'd learn some objective things about Alfie Kohn and his work, and what I see here is a passable personal essay about his work. I'd like to see something more objective. I understand that the page is rated "start" quality by the ratings group. I would like to work towards making a better page. What other biographies of contemporary writers might be good to compare with?

--Mantator 14:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Amen Mantator, Amen!

Drunkencorgimaster 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Drunkencorgimaster 9/4/07Reply

It deserves much more, but I started it with the following text: Kohn has been the subject of a significant amount of criticism.^[1] For example, cognitive scientist, Daniel Willingham has written that "Kohn consistently makes factual errors, oversimplifies the literature that he seeks to explain, and commits logical fallacies."^[2] -- 17:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHouse18 (talk • contribs)

Every time I try to add something like ``His claims have been criticized by some professional academics.^[3][4]" it gets immediately erased or watered-down. It is completly standard and appropriate to objectively discuss how an writer/lecturer's ideas have been received. User: Gadetbiy34

When you show me links to quality wiki articles that have a criticism section, then we can consider this staying in. I have yet to find one, and I have looked extensively in educational philosophers and social psychologists. Until one is found, this section goes. This article mentions in the intro that he has critics and in what areas. That should be enough. And if you were truly trying to be objective, you would have posted that Kohn had a rebuttal and linked to that as well. --QuiBobJinn (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone have any information about Kohn's credentials? Where did he go to college? What degree(s) does he hold? Why should he be considered an expert in the field of education? I find it odd that even his own web site does not contain any information about his educational background or experiences that would lend credence to his work. ~ME

I totally agree 100% with "ME." Does anyone know? ~AZ

"AZ" & "ME": What do you mean by "lend credence to his work"? He cites primary sources in every paragraph, he doesn't claim to have his own studies. As for his own website not containing information on his background: Go to the website, click on the FAQ link near the bottom right-hand corner. The third point in the FAQ is:

A surprising amount of mail has been arriving lately with requests for details about my personal history. Some people are simply curious. Some ask because they think this information will be useful for a class assignment. And some seem angry about what I’ve written and appear to be hoping to find some fact about me that will make them feel better about dismissing my ideas. [...] I’m more interested in calling attention to ideas than to the particulars of my background. That’s why my website is dedicated to the former rather than to the latter. I’d rather that my arguments were judged on their merits rather than filtered through a biographical lens.

- Dissembly 03:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

And here his books promote experiental learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.79.119 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The homework book makes a passing reference to his being a teacher, based on the context it seems likely it was upper middle school, or high school. Here's the citation: http://books.google.com/books?id=_pj54f1vSYAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=alfie+kohn&ei=zPQxR7OcL5yY7wLI1ITLAQ&sig=lLy2OlrsDptL_9A_LT0KfkaINlw#PPA89,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.176.194 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, what the hell does it mean he got a MA in "social sciences" from Chicago? Generally, the social sciences are a genre, not a subject one can receive a degree in. What is his degree IN? Psychology, sociology, economics, political science?130.74.79.77 (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's one of two things - either someone who doesn't feel like saying his degree is or what I suspect, it's generally a "consolation prize" degree for when you get rejected from a PhD program. Chicago is notorious for them (they send out letters right after you're rejected from a PhD), but Columbia has them too. Most of the time they're "Masters in the Liberal Arts" though, but Chicago has a MAPSS. It's basically the degree you get when you have too much money and not enough talent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.79.119 (talk)

Anyone have reference to him teaching college? I can't find any. --QuiBobJinn (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The "Controversy" section of the article doesn't appear to have any information on actual controversies regarding Alfie Kohn; it's just someone's personal observation. I am removing it. - Dissembly 03:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok... at 01:47 on the 11 June 2007, "69.153.114.100" reverted the deleted "controversy" section (under a new name) with no explanation either in the edit history or on this Discussion page. (How many mindless reverts are acceptable, again?) The section of text contains blatant POV. I have removed the POV, but i am afraid that with the POV removed it is a rather uninteresting paragraph. (And there is still no reference to any controversy regarding Alfie Kohn or his arguments). Dissembly 09:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wish to respond to the above reference to my comments as "mindless" and blatantly "POV." I have a Ph.D. and do not consider myself to be mindless. POV is not a word I am familiar with. I assume it stands for something, but I do not know what. I do not normally post on Wikipedia, but I feel strongly about this subject. I changed the title because you claimed it was not a controversy. Fine, but it is factual. It happened. How do you want me to title it? Wikipedia guidelines ask you to be factual. I was. It also asks you to be friendly. Is "mindless" friendly? Please tell me, Dissembly, how you want me to present this factual incident (to which I was a witness) and I will happily do it. (Drunkencorgimaster)7/19

-No response yet? 7/24

POV is a standard Wikimedia abbreviation for "point of view". All Wikimedia articles are supposed to have a NPOV (neutral point of view). See Neutral point of view for more information. Perhaps more to the point regarding your contribution are the Verifiability and No original research policies. Describing a personally witnessed event on a Wikipedia page (no matter how factual) constitutes original research and is not verifiable. The proper alternative is to describe the public record of an event, whether you personally witnessed it or not. Dissembly's "mindless" comment appears to refer to the revert and not to the content of your contribution. There have been many edit wars on Wikipedia. To help prevent them, it is expected that a revert include a reason, either in the Edit Summary or on the discussion page. "Mindless revert" was shorthand for "revert without an explanation in either the edit summary or the discussion page". Your contribution is not mindless (though I agree that it is outside Wikipedia policy), but your revert did not follow standard protocol. JMRyan 19:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

However, Kohn is a controversial figure in child development, so the lack of any reference to controversy is a serious lacuna. 98.233.83.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC).Reply

The second paragraph in the lead makes it clear that he is controversial, and provides a list of many of the groups who generally disagree with him. I think that's plenty of a reference. John Darrow (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

My thinking on this is that the fact that his views are controversial needs to be mentioned, and has. There does not/should not be an actual section dedicated to controversy surrounding his views because my fear is that it will degenerate into people posting opposing views/supports for their views and neither side will view that section as balanced. Reading that back, I think I just summarized the early history of this page.

There are times and places to discuss/debate the value of Kohn's ideas. Wikipedia isn't it. --QuiBobJinn (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Removing the following: At a workshop held in 2000 at Manlius Pebble Hill School in DeWitt, New York, Kohn spoke about the problems with the sole use of lecturing to teach curriculum items to elementary and secondary school students, arguing for active learning approaches in schools.

The lecture lasted two hours, and Kohn devoted an hour to a question-and-answer session, taking three questions and giving twenty minute answers to each question.

Reason: This seems biased to show he's a hypocrite. From personal communication with him, Kohn realizes the seeming hypocrisy. Also, he is paid to be a lecturer, but does run workshops more in line with what he preaches. Further, he also realizes that lecture has its place in the classroom. Just not the place at the forefront that it currently holds. QuiBobJinn 19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification QuiBobJinn (really),

My comments ARE biased. I admit that, but I think it is silly to pretend that the rest of the page is somehow sanitarily objective. Let's be honest. There is no such thing as a truly neutral point of view. I am glad Alfie realizes he's a hypocrite. Sounds like Alfie is also being honest. (If you read this Alfie, good for you to admit that!) And for the record the workshop I suffered through was not what he preached. It was just the 'Sage on the Stage' with no imput from the audience. Maybe he has changed since 2000, -beats me.

So you defenders of Mr. Kohn have won this round, but are you really being intellectually honest by censoring the one small voice in the wilderness that dares question this man with a bunch of technicalities like 'POV' and 'Original Research?' Why are there four pro-Kohn quotatins on the page? Are they not 'POV'? I have no doubt that if I presented that episode (for the fourth time) with a verifiable source that was non-original research (A signed letter from Mannlius-Pebble Hill faculty for example) one of you Alfie-disciples would come up with yet another reason to take it off. What are you all so bloody afraid of? Where is the dialogue? Where is the give-and-take? WWAS? (What would Abelard Say?)

 -Drunkencorgimaster 9/4/04  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkencorgimaster (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply 

Since POV seems to be OK if it is in a quote I have added an alternative voice to the quotes section to provide perspective and balance. If it is deleted for any reason whatsoever, I will report the action and file an objectivity complaint. The page is already well-over the fairness line in my opionion. --Drunkencorgimaster 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Drunkencorgimaster (again)Reply

Mr. Drunkencorgimaster -- since this is a biographical article, it is held to a higher standard. Please see the notice at the top of this page. I'd love to rip apart theUffe Ravnskov article, for instance, but that just wouldn't be Cricket.

--Javance 04:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You guys are still pulling nonsense in this section. We have gone around and around on this. If the anti-Alfie quotations are going to be repeatedly removed than all quotations must go.--Drunkencorgimaster 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Once again this article is degenerating into an Alfie infomercial. These quotations are all completely one-sided.--Drunkencorgimaster (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. The purpose of this article is to give encyclopedic information about Alfie Kohn. Providing quotes from Kohn helps the reader understand what Kohn's positions and beliefs are, and thus why he is considered notable. It does _not_ imply endorsement of the positions taken by Kohn, any more than providing quotes by any other individual implies endorsement of the positions taken by those individuals. John Darrow (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe those quotations represent and encapsulate many ideas in several of his books, that is why they are included. In some cases, I believe, he almost uses the exact phrasing for some of them in several of his books. I also believe that this is not the place or forum to debate the validity of AK's ideas, but that what's on here can lead to that debate or discussion. Removing the quotes removes that possibility. I also agree with John Darrow, just having the quotes does not imply endorsement any more than having (Godwin alert) Hitler's, Charlie Manson's or Jeffrey Dahmer's actions in their wiki articles endorses them.

Besides that, none of the quotes are endorsements of Kohn, but merely from Kohn. The only "endorsement" of any type I recall putting in here is the bit about Deming, which isn't an endorsement, but merely a statement of the fact that Deming did endorse No Contest. I will look for an online source for that when I get around to it and properly cite it. Until then, I think the Quotations should be reinstated.

Now I admit that I am clearly biased because I worked hard on this and so I don't know how unbiased I can truly be in the inclusion/exclusion of parts. My vote is to reinstate the section, but I'd like to hear from others besides Drunken and Darrow or be shown examples where quotations are included in other wikis. --QuiBobJinn (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quotations go back. [1] --QuiBobJinn (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, fine. I appreciate you are proud of this article and Kohn's work, and I will put back the quotations for the time being, but let us be honest. There is no way this is still a balanced article. It was for a while QuiBobJinn, but it is back to its old self of a year-or-so ago. Alfie (I assume you are one of the contributors) you claim to be always 'fighting' for the importance of self-expression, and yet you want to shut any (and I mean ANY) viewpoint that is contrary to your own on this page. At the moment the fight is over quotations but if I did something else, like add a link to a page by one of Kohn's many critics, I have no doubt that it would disappear too. Scholarship and critical reasoning demand that alternative views should be given a just hearing. Not to your apostles. I totally agree with Kohn's views on homework, but that does not mean that I do not find the one-sided presentation of such important issues on this page utterly appalling. I am actually thinking of making this page a centerpiece for a lesson plan on "What is Wrong With Wikipedia" for my methods research class. I challenge you to put one, just one, counter-point up here. Let's see how long it stays.--Drunkencorgimaster (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll say it again: quoting an individual, _on a page about that individual_, is not unbalancing. It is simply providing information about what that person believes, _so that the reader themselves can decide whether to agree with it or not_. Adding Kohn-critical quotes would not "balance" this out; on the contrary, if they were added, they themselves would require some Kohn-supportive quotes from other (non-Kohn) sources in order to "balance" them.

Now, if this were a page about educational theory in general, then, yes, having quotes by only Kohn would be unbalanced. But it is not a general page. It is a page _about Alfie Kohn._ John Darrow (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I doubt the manager of the Cleveland Indians has any strong pedagogical opinions. Removing Wiki link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javance (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've gone through and made this article as complete and unbiased as possible. I realize that Kohn's views are controversial, that does not mean, however, that he shouldn't have as complete and unbiased of an article as possible. I'd appreciate any feedback and suggested changes. I'll be checking back every so often. --QuiBobJinn (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Made some minor formatting and editing changes to go with major revision. --QuiBobJinn (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here is a google search for Alfie Kohn "former teacher". It's pretty much accepted commonly that he was a certified high school teacher at some point: [2] --QuiBobJinn (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alfie Kohn taught existentialism in high school. Know many "existentialism" classes in high school. He was a guest lecturer for real teachers in real schools. His claims of being a teacher are totally false. Check the records- he refuses to name the school he "taught" at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.74.210.171 (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am going to slowly go through (a section at a time) and try to cite as many sources as I can. The issue is finding credible/independent ones since much of what I know is from AK's site. I'm trying, though. Any help is greatly appreciated. Once this is decently citated, who do we talk to about getting the banner removed/class of article changed from "start-class"? --QuiBobJinn (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Considering I've now added 7 different citations, 4 for the biography section alone (which is ridiculous to have to do, if you ask me), I've removed the citation banner. I will continue to add citations as i can. I've also changed the class of the article to "b class" Anyone else have thoughts on this? --QuiBobJinn (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

At this point the significant majority of references are to sources not tied to Alfie Kohn. I recommend removing the banner at the top of the article. I'll give a couple of weeks to a month to see if others feel differently before changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.188.105.137 (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

This was left by Mathbuster (talk · contribs) in the article. Left without comment from myself. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Reference #3 is from a teachers.net discussion and states only that he was educated at U of Chicago with no qualifiers. It is a highly dubious reference as it is anecdotal, at best, in an introduction by the discussion moderator. Also, 'social sciences' is a bit vague. Does this mean he majored in anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, political science, or international studies? What gives him the right to criticize any of these topics to the extent that he does? This is shockingly inexact biography that gives no meaningful information for ascertaining whether MR. <not doctor> Kohn is an expert on any of the subjects he criticizes. How long did he teach? Where? What were the circumstances of his leaving his positions?

... and again. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Reference #4 is from a teachers.net discussion and states only that he was educated at U of Chicago with no qualifiers. It is a highly dubious reference as it is anecdotal, at best, in an introduction by the discussion moderator. Also, 'social sciences' is a bit vague. Does this mean he majored in anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, political science, or international studies? What gives him the right to criticize any of these topics to the extent that he does? This is shockingly inexact biography that gives no meaningful information for ascertaining whether MR. <not doctor> Kohn is an expert on any of the subjects he criticizes. How long did he teach? Where? What were the circumstances of his leaving his positions?

Took out the following sentence: While Kohn's work has been criticized by some academics ^[1][2], it has also been noted how well-researched it is.^{[3] [4] [5]}

Reason: The article already states that he is controversial and who finds him controversial. Behaviorists would fall under academics. There’s no point in having the debate in the article with dueling links.

Seriously? Non-behaviorist academics also criticize his writing, suggestions, and conclusions? Saying that he is controversial and that conservatives and "behaviorists" disagree gives a very misleading picture of who criticizes his writing. E.g what do theorists who work in child development and parenting think about his take on parenting? Does he misconstrue the findings? Does he draw the right lessons from the empirical work? G-girl

Removed the following: Kohn is an independent writer who is not and has never been affiliated with any university faculty or research institution.

Reason: POV. The only reason to include the phrase “and never has been” is to attempt to undermine Kohn’s work. The article already states his credentials and that he is controversial. If people really feel the need to delve into it, they are more than welcome to try google or other academic databases. --QuiBobJinn (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok fair enough. I was just trying to get across that his is not affiliated with a research institution. Its he implication that is negative the sentence itself is just staight-up fact, not POV. How about: "Kohn is an independent writer not affiliated with any university."

Independent implies he is not affiliated with a university. --QuiBobJinn (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?SKU=0140

  Triggered by \bbeacon\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the link but the blacklist warning at the top of Alfie Kohn's page is still there. 63.247.160.139 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

So we've gone back and forth on inclusion of his divorce vs. not having it. Personally, I think that and his children are irrelevant details. But if they're going to be included, they don't need their own section. Just include them in the bio section. I don't want to start/continue a WIki-war over this, but my gut tells me the people trying to get this included have an anti-Alfie agenda and are trying to make/prove some point about him by including it in the article and highlighting it with its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuiBobJinn (talk • contribs) 17:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

An author of books about children: whether or not he is married or has children, seems relevant. 64.134.27.106 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Observation: User QuiBobJinn has made maybe 30 edits, but only of this page.64.134.151.82 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. It's all a part of my plan to brainwash people. How ever did you know? QuiBobJinn

QuiBobJinn, That all your edits are for this article seems "unusual", especially for an article about a living person. 166.137.246.66 (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Quotations sections do not belong on Wikipedia WP:NOT WP:QUOTE they go on Wikiquote instead. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

That is an extremely narrow read of that policy. From the same part - "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic" I would say a list of Alfie Kohn quotations falls under this category considering it summarizes key points of his work in his own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuiBobJinn (talk • contribs) 01:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section" WP:QUOTE. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the clarification and pointing out that specific section. I apologize for not digging that deep earlier. As you can see up page, there was questions several years ago about including it in the first place and no one else could point me there, in fact I didn't even know the style pages existed. Thanks for pointing that out. Finally, my instinct on this page is to not trust unsigned edits since this page is periodically vandalized. Much less so now than a few years ago thanks to a handful of individuals who keep it fairly clean much more often than I ever could. Over the last couple of years, those who find Kohn's work to be the antithesis of their beliefs have grown to be more...indirect with their attacks and sneakier as they try to chip away a line here or there. In any case, I apologize for my initial instinct to not trust and hope you did not take offense. QuiBobJinn

Here is a quote someone wanted put at the top of this TALK page. I have given it it's own section rather than remove it. I have no idea why it was included on this Talk page. Maybe the original anonymous author can give us some context. Until they do, here it sits. QuiBobJinn (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

``Kohn specializes in attacking conventional wisdom in education. He takes a common practice that people think is helpful and then shows it’s not helpful, and in fact is destructive. Most people think that homework helps kids learn, praise shows appreciation and makes them more likely to do desirable things, and self-discipline helps them achieve their goals. Kohn argues that each of these conclusions is wrong or over-simplified. Homework may bring small benefits to some students, but it incurs greater costs and overall is likely not worth assigning. Praise doesn’t help academic achievement, it controls children, it reduces motivation, and makes them less able to make decisions. Self-discipline is oversold as an educational panacea, and in some contexts may actually be undesirable. Kohn consistently makes factual errors, oversimplifies the literature that he seeks to explain, and commits logical fallacies. Dr. Daniel Willingham (professor of psychology)

Someone posted a COI tag and said "See talk page" and then left no place to talk about it. Are there specific sections or text that seem to warrant this tag? I'm giving it two weeks and then taking it off if nothing comes to light. _{Preceding unsigned comment by QuiBobJinn}.

The edit summary on the tag explains the problem perfectly clearly: "substantial content by one editor". And, QuiBobJinn, since you're the editor in question, it would behoove you to leave the tag there, else you would demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that you do have a conflict of interest. 32.218.40.10 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

To have a COI implies a close relationship with the subject or a vested interest in the subject's agenda. To the first point, there is no way for me to verify there is no close relationship that will satisfy anyone on here. To the second point, given the controversial nature of Kohn's views I don't know anyone who is truly neutral. What I have witnessed over the years are two extremes of edits: Those who vandalize the article and those who choose to nibble at the corners in an attempt to discredit Kohn and/or his ideas. As the person who put this article under a major revision some years ago, I am of course partial to its content and the wording of it. I have tried to stay out of the wordsmithing and instead only corrected the clear vandalism or clear attempts at slanting the article one way or the other.

Perhaps I am not the person to determine if the COI tag stays or goes. Perhaps two weeks is too small of a window. But the addition of it has the not so faint whiff of nibbling at the corners.QuiBobJinn (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I removed the Conflict of Interest Tag. If you want the COI tag to stay, please provide examples of where COI exists in this article and how it might taint someone's understanding of Alfie Kohn and his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.188.105.137 (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alfie Kohn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080718171021/http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/12/opposing-view-4.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/12/opposing-view-4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120215123416/http://www.nais.org/publications/ismagazinearticle.cfm?Itemnumber=150652&sn.ItemNumber=145956 to http://www.nais.org/publications/ismagazinearticle.cfm?Itemnumber=150652&sn.ItemNumber=145956

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Recently this was added as the first descriptor. I have never encountered him described as a journalist nor do I find any reason to do so. Can someone please provide the reasoning for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.194.71 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alfie Kohn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717025752/http://www.nais.org/publications/ismagazinearticle.cfm?ItemNumber=144263 to http://www.nais.org/publications/ismagazinearticle.cfm?ItemNumber=144263
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326134658/http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Involved/Volunteer/Appointed%20Groups/Past_Recipients_Orwell_Award.pdf to http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Involved/Volunteer/Appointed%20Groups/Past_Recipients_Orwell_Award.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply