This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michelle Rhee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As so often happens someone has gifted an article with tags and no guiding comments on the talk page. If no one can elaborate as to why they think the tone is inappropriate or how the grammar or style of the article is lacking, I will remove these tags within in the next couple of days. -- Cjs56 ( talk) 03:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Michelle Rhee was featured on this evening's CBS News broadcast: CBS Story on Michelle Rhee. I am not sure if CBS added any useful information to the fund of knowledge about her; I am just adding this here in case someone with more experience at biographies can use it. -- Krb3141 ( talk) 00:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
She just made the cover of time Magazine- Lots of information there if we want to use it. Borisblue ( talk) 16:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the politics section (which was fairly short) as I don't know that it was useful, and if it was, I couldn't tell what the point was. Feel free to revert, but please explain why. Hobit ( talk) 02:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is her name shown in Hangul? Are we claiming she's a foreigner?... I'll remove it. Please discuss. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Folks, i don't speak Korean, but my read is that if her parents gave her more than one name and that can be sourced, putting that name here is appropriate. Exactly _where_ it goes I don't have a strong opinion on, but I do think it would be fine in the article. Hobit ( talk) 17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the {{rs}} tag. Chosun Ilbo is a major newspaper in South Korea and is actually used by many articles as sources here on WP. It's reliable. The question of whether or not Rhee's Korean name should be included is an unrelated issue. That's something that we can get more info for with the RfC - and not by putting an {{rs}} tag on an obviously reliable source. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 07:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Should the article about Michelle Rhee give an alternate name in Korean and Hangul?
The article about Michelle Rhee contains a Korean alternate name in Hangul which - according to a Korean newspaper - is another name she has. However, she is American, born in the U.S., and to my knowledge, there is no indication that she actually uses this name. I have had an interesting discussion with another editor on the article's talkpage about this, and now find myself at a loss as to whether or not there is a convention/policy concerning such cases. What say ye? Any thoughts on this?
This is a minor issue, and in my mind not about "winning or losing". I am simply interested in more input here. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Missed the RfC. See my opinion above. Hobit ( talk) 17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
As noted in my edit summary, I restored two sentences added by Newspawaws and removed by NW, but merged them into the previous section (where they fit quite nicely). I feel that A) it's pretty clearly true and B) it's very relevant to the section (about firings) because it addresses some of the reasons for the firings. Hobit ( talk) 00:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is messed up right now because it is missing the reflist template for the list of footnotes. But I can't add it back in because there are four sources from examiner.com and apparently examiner.com is currently blocked by Wikipedia. What the heck is going on? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why 96.250.152.110 deleted so much information without stating why. Should I undo it? Sharonidith ( talk) 20:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It just seems odd that an article on Rhee which also criticizes her school closings and firings don't say anything about what drove her to do so, positive data points or anything else she's done as Chancellor. I went ahead and added a section doing so, but I was wondering if there's a reason that stuff was excluded, and wanted to welcome any additional information out there. King ( talk) 20:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Much of the article leans to POV promotional piece, such as test data and her classes. Information has been added, regarding Rhee's conduct as a first-year teacher. As stated in the cited Washington Post article, she taped shut the mouths of her students. Gogue2 ( talk) 02:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I flagged this article with POV as it is written to completely slant all of this woman's actions. It mentions that most of the teachers she fired got poor evaluations. What it doesn't say is that the evaluation system used was slanted heavily towards test scores (the IMPACT system). It doesn't say that there are many people in the education field who disagree completely with the criteria she uses to choose "good" teachers. I submit this article for an alternate point of view: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/rheeform.shtml -- while it is clear that that article also has somewhat of a bias, there is a lot in there that is fact and at least serves to call some of this Wikipedia article into question. A lot of other little things eat at me too, like the one piece where it talks about Ms. Rhee's comments about laying off teachers who were hitting or having sex with students, followed by an outcry by teachers unions about having been slandered, followed by ONE single solitary case where it was founded (we don't even know if this teacher was one of the 266 she was talking about). That phrase was clearly put in there for evidence's sake, when anyone knows that 1 does not even come close to incriminating the rest.
I could go on and on... it really needs to spend a lot more time talking about what she is doing, not what she thinks she is doing. If it were written to say that she professes that she's rooting out bad teachers, that's one thing. This article claims it as fact, and there are many out there (more qualified than her -- did you notice, she has NO formal training in education according to her bio?) who disagree. ryanov ( talk) 09:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the most shameful articles on Wikipedia, because of its strong POV against Michelle Rhee. It reads like a slam piece written by a disgruntled member of the DC teachers union. As an example, the excessive use of quotations around phrases like school reformers and student achievement. This is the great weak point of Wikipedia; a person with a bias and a lot of time can come in and turn an article into a slam piece. Articles like this endanger the whole concept of Wikipedia.-- Westwind273 ( talk) 10:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is a ridiculous hatchet job. It should be completely overhauled, or if that cannot be done, deleted. Vereverde ( talk) 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Whew! This article says more about the weaknesses of Wikipedia than it does about Michelle Rhee. The extreme bias of this article does not leave me optimistic for the future of Wikipedia. In order to see the bias in the article, compare it with the article on Randi Weingarten. Two public figures who have had the same level of controversy surrounding them (on the same issues), but the two articles are worlds apart in the space they devote to "criticism". Let's just call a spade a spade; Wikipedia has a liberal bias. An article like this cheapens all of Wikipedia. What a shame. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Greg, this article really has such a negative tone it's really hard to point out the specifics of its bias. I'll do my best though. One thing I did notice is that after every positive thing said about Rhee there is always a disclaimer saying that this "could not be verified" while at the same time, little doubt is shed on the negative points brought up against her. Lots of other word choice general paints her in a negative light, for example "Rhee is divorced from Teach For America Executive Vice President of Public Affairs Kevin Huffman", while completely true, has a much more negative tone than say "Rhee's marriage with XXXX of TFA ending in 19XX". Topics such as her personal and professional life should remain neutral they should not bring up how some guy published that some other guy in a blog said what she said was false (as is mentioned under "professional life"). That has a very here-say feel to it even if it is source. This content belongs in a separate "personal criticisms" or "controversy" category.
Rhee is a controversial figure, making this a difficult article to write, but I think that it's generally helpful to frame either positive or negative comments as opinions that others have held in order to maintain a neutral tone on wikipedia. For instance, the comment on her putting tape on children's faces should be phrased "She is often criticized for.. [the incident]", rather than just stating it plainly. Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's kind of horrifying, but I think it's important that wikipedia maintains NPOV. UMich215SSG ( talk) 00:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was clear considering that the table to the right says they are divorced, but I added that word again to avoid all ambiguities. However, I do think the way it is worded now is definitely more neutral. "Divorce" is just one of those words that takes on a more negative connotation in verb form. "Getting a divorce" sounds less harsh than "divorcing your spouse" because it is less action based. Kind of like "getting an abortion" vs "aborting your baby". Both statements mean the same thing, but one clearly has a negative tone while the other a neutral one. I'm not trying to paint an overly positive picture of Rhee, but merely a more neutral one.
Regarding my other edits, I didn't remove any information that wasn't supported by the citations. I edited statements that weren't reflective of their cited sources so that they were more accurate. UMich215SSG ( talk) 00:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This article should be featured on some kind of "Worst of Wikipedia" list. The biggest weakness of Wikipedia is biased articles, and this article is the poster child. This week's Washington Times article does a good job explaining the campaign to attack Michelle Rhee, which unfortunately this Wikipedia article has become part of: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/24/the-battle-to-defame-michelle-rhee/?page=1 -- Westwind273 ( talk) 20:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
In the infobox her party is listed as Democratic. Why is this here? Is she an active member of the Democratic Party, or is this just her registration? She seems to work with politicians from both parties, doesn't run for office... The inclusion of party implies some relevance, but what would that be? Jd2718 ( talk) 14:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I am starting a discussion section here because I believe the edits I made to the article's section on vouchers were well-justified, but they have been quickly reverted with the reason given that someone feels they are "relevant" and "helpful". [3] Because of the quick and complete reversion of my changes, I am providing a lengthier discussion of my own reasons and I am editing out material in steps to facilitate further discussion, if necessary. KeptSouth (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I have requested a third opinion on this dispute, and the request is now listed on the active disagreement section. Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements -- KeptSouth ( talk) 20:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You can't be serious. I have addressed your assertions repeatedly. Kindly stop the baseless accusations and name calling. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Your argument to keep a redundant quote for dramatic literary effect in a Wikipedia bio had little or no basis in WP practice and became moot one hour later when I discovered the quote came from an OR transcription of a primary source that was posted on an advocacy blog site. [11] I have discussed all that in my edit summaries and in the discussion above. Reliably sourced alternative quotes and descriptions of her position are available. Your continued insistence on including primary source material original research and uncited statements is baffling, and indicates that a higher level of dispute resolution may be needed. What do you think about posting this issue on the BLP noticeboard?-- KeptSouth ( talk) 08:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, saw your listing on the 3O page. Without wanting to get bogged down in the details you have both been discussing, I wonder if it would be possible to get a list of relevant quotes that come from WP:RS's? This would exclude primary sources in the first instance I should think, but should include any analysis of comments made during the Presidential debate. I don't think it will take much work to reach a version all can agree on. MissionNPOVible ( talk) 06:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess I need to be more careful with my attempts at levity :-) On the more substantive issue, a RS is a RS. It isn't for us to judge bias, just to report what the sources say. The critical thing is that the source is reliable, and that we are unbiased in presenting the RS views - not that the RS's are unbiased per se. MissionNPOVible ( talk) 02:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The content that has been readded with a RS in relation to an organization the subject is related to in regards to Paul H. Scott should be reviewed. Per WP:BLP#Balance this content is not directly about the subject of the article and maybe used as an attack against the subject and should be modified to either be neutral per WP:NPOV or removed outright. The quotation is unnecessary, as are the actions of StudentsFirst, IMHO. Actions by the organization can be written about in an article about the organization itself, and not necessarily here on this BLP article, IMHO.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The subsection "Test erasures" is very poorly sourced and too long and gives the overall impression of being biased against Rhee. The first citation, which supports a sweeping statement, is to an opinion piece, not a WP:RS. Then there are a whole bunch of statistics and quotes with no citations whatsoever. On top of that the subject just doesn't seem to merit such extreme detail. I think a section about half the length -- or merging this subsection into the one before it, "Support and criticism" -- would be appropriate. As it stands now I'm adding a POV-section until I or someone else has the time to address these issues. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 07:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This article was listed for copyright evaluation on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 February 10. As an uninvolved administrator, I am only just now getting to look at it, and I do find content was placed in this article in a manner that does not accord with our copyright policies. For example, it previously featured a quote from Lord that not only copied the quote but also the interjection of the article writer and the attribution he supplied. Aside from a few preliminary words, it also copied several sentences on the ratio of cheating found.
My rewrite is primarily to address those concerns - we cannot copy copyrighted sources in a manner inconsistent with non-free content policy and guideline. Close paraphrasing must also be limited; Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing discusses this more. (See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
Some of the content in the article was also not consistent with BLP, and this has been corrected.
There is certainly significant coverage of this issue, but I am inclined to agree that it may be too much weight. I didn't reduce it, though, but simply summarized what I found to avoid any issues with potentially being seen as using copyright concerns to suppress coverage. I'd encourage those who have an interest in the subject to help out here, by shortening focus as appropriate, but please do not restore text that was removed without first making sure that it does not copy or closely paraphrase USA Today and that it is properly supported by that source. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Source | Article |
---|---|
At three of the award-winning schools — Phoebe Hearst Elementary, Winston Education Campus and Aiton Elementary — 85% or more of classrooms were identified as having high erasure rates in 2008. At four other schools, the percentage of classrooms in that category ranged from 17% to 58%. | At Phoebe Hearst Elementary, Winston Education Campus, and Aiton Elementary, 85% or more of classrooms were identified as having high erasure rates in 2008. At four other schools, the percentage of classrooms in that category ranged from 17% to 58%. |
I've rolled back your edits. They did not reflect the sources, and discarded significant content as opposed to summarizing it. I'll take a stab at a better sourced summary later tonight. aprock ( talk) 01:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want to improve the wording, please go ahead. If you think there is a problem with the current wording, please be more clear about what you think the problem is. If you think there is a copyright violation, be clear about what you think the violation is. aprock ( talk) 17:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You are free to make any constructive suggestions at any time. If the only content edits you have to contribute are reverts, it's not clear that you are going to get much traction. I'd you really have policy concerns, allow me to suggest you either be more clear about which content is causing such concerns or bring them to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock ( talk) 19:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues.
Frontline documentary on Michelle Rhee http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/education-of-michelle-rhee/
Criticism of Rhee's "Report Card" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/michelle-rhee-report-card_n_2427097.html -- Nbauman ( talk) 17:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding ignorant, there is such a title as "First Lady of Sacramento"? Nick O'Sea ( talk) 19:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"In 2008, 28% of African Americans supported Rhee, down from 50% in 2008." From the context, maybe the second "2008" should be 2010?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Rhee. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michelle Rhee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As so often happens someone has gifted an article with tags and no guiding comments on the talk page. If no one can elaborate as to why they think the tone is inappropriate or how the grammar or style of the article is lacking, I will remove these tags within in the next couple of days. -- Cjs56 ( talk) 03:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Michelle Rhee was featured on this evening's CBS News broadcast: CBS Story on Michelle Rhee. I am not sure if CBS added any useful information to the fund of knowledge about her; I am just adding this here in case someone with more experience at biographies can use it. -- Krb3141 ( talk) 00:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
She just made the cover of time Magazine- Lots of information there if we want to use it. Borisblue ( talk) 16:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the politics section (which was fairly short) as I don't know that it was useful, and if it was, I couldn't tell what the point was. Feel free to revert, but please explain why. Hobit ( talk) 02:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is her name shown in Hangul? Are we claiming she's a foreigner?... I'll remove it. Please discuss. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Folks, i don't speak Korean, but my read is that if her parents gave her more than one name and that can be sourced, putting that name here is appropriate. Exactly _where_ it goes I don't have a strong opinion on, but I do think it would be fine in the article. Hobit ( talk) 17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the {{rs}} tag. Chosun Ilbo is a major newspaper in South Korea and is actually used by many articles as sources here on WP. It's reliable. The question of whether or not Rhee's Korean name should be included is an unrelated issue. That's something that we can get more info for with the RfC - and not by putting an {{rs}} tag on an obviously reliable source. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 07:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Should the article about Michelle Rhee give an alternate name in Korean and Hangul?
The article about Michelle Rhee contains a Korean alternate name in Hangul which - according to a Korean newspaper - is another name she has. However, she is American, born in the U.S., and to my knowledge, there is no indication that she actually uses this name. I have had an interesting discussion with another editor on the article's talkpage about this, and now find myself at a loss as to whether or not there is a convention/policy concerning such cases. What say ye? Any thoughts on this?
This is a minor issue, and in my mind not about "winning or losing". I am simply interested in more input here. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Missed the RfC. See my opinion above. Hobit ( talk) 17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
As noted in my edit summary, I restored two sentences added by Newspawaws and removed by NW, but merged them into the previous section (where they fit quite nicely). I feel that A) it's pretty clearly true and B) it's very relevant to the section (about firings) because it addresses some of the reasons for the firings. Hobit ( talk) 00:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is messed up right now because it is missing the reflist template for the list of footnotes. But I can't add it back in because there are four sources from examiner.com and apparently examiner.com is currently blocked by Wikipedia. What the heck is going on? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why 96.250.152.110 deleted so much information without stating why. Should I undo it? Sharonidith ( talk) 20:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It just seems odd that an article on Rhee which also criticizes her school closings and firings don't say anything about what drove her to do so, positive data points or anything else she's done as Chancellor. I went ahead and added a section doing so, but I was wondering if there's a reason that stuff was excluded, and wanted to welcome any additional information out there. King ( talk) 20:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Much of the article leans to POV promotional piece, such as test data and her classes. Information has been added, regarding Rhee's conduct as a first-year teacher. As stated in the cited Washington Post article, she taped shut the mouths of her students. Gogue2 ( talk) 02:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I flagged this article with POV as it is written to completely slant all of this woman's actions. It mentions that most of the teachers she fired got poor evaluations. What it doesn't say is that the evaluation system used was slanted heavily towards test scores (the IMPACT system). It doesn't say that there are many people in the education field who disagree completely with the criteria she uses to choose "good" teachers. I submit this article for an alternate point of view: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/rheeform.shtml -- while it is clear that that article also has somewhat of a bias, there is a lot in there that is fact and at least serves to call some of this Wikipedia article into question. A lot of other little things eat at me too, like the one piece where it talks about Ms. Rhee's comments about laying off teachers who were hitting or having sex with students, followed by an outcry by teachers unions about having been slandered, followed by ONE single solitary case where it was founded (we don't even know if this teacher was one of the 266 she was talking about). That phrase was clearly put in there for evidence's sake, when anyone knows that 1 does not even come close to incriminating the rest.
I could go on and on... it really needs to spend a lot more time talking about what she is doing, not what she thinks she is doing. If it were written to say that she professes that she's rooting out bad teachers, that's one thing. This article claims it as fact, and there are many out there (more qualified than her -- did you notice, she has NO formal training in education according to her bio?) who disagree. ryanov ( talk) 09:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the most shameful articles on Wikipedia, because of its strong POV against Michelle Rhee. It reads like a slam piece written by a disgruntled member of the DC teachers union. As an example, the excessive use of quotations around phrases like school reformers and student achievement. This is the great weak point of Wikipedia; a person with a bias and a lot of time can come in and turn an article into a slam piece. Articles like this endanger the whole concept of Wikipedia.-- Westwind273 ( talk) 10:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is a ridiculous hatchet job. It should be completely overhauled, or if that cannot be done, deleted. Vereverde ( talk) 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Whew! This article says more about the weaknesses of Wikipedia than it does about Michelle Rhee. The extreme bias of this article does not leave me optimistic for the future of Wikipedia. In order to see the bias in the article, compare it with the article on Randi Weingarten. Two public figures who have had the same level of controversy surrounding them (on the same issues), but the two articles are worlds apart in the space they devote to "criticism". Let's just call a spade a spade; Wikipedia has a liberal bias. An article like this cheapens all of Wikipedia. What a shame. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Greg, this article really has such a negative tone it's really hard to point out the specifics of its bias. I'll do my best though. One thing I did notice is that after every positive thing said about Rhee there is always a disclaimer saying that this "could not be verified" while at the same time, little doubt is shed on the negative points brought up against her. Lots of other word choice general paints her in a negative light, for example "Rhee is divorced from Teach For America Executive Vice President of Public Affairs Kevin Huffman", while completely true, has a much more negative tone than say "Rhee's marriage with XXXX of TFA ending in 19XX". Topics such as her personal and professional life should remain neutral they should not bring up how some guy published that some other guy in a blog said what she said was false (as is mentioned under "professional life"). That has a very here-say feel to it even if it is source. This content belongs in a separate "personal criticisms" or "controversy" category.
Rhee is a controversial figure, making this a difficult article to write, but I think that it's generally helpful to frame either positive or negative comments as opinions that others have held in order to maintain a neutral tone on wikipedia. For instance, the comment on her putting tape on children's faces should be phrased "She is often criticized for.. [the incident]", rather than just stating it plainly. Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's kind of horrifying, but I think it's important that wikipedia maintains NPOV. UMich215SSG ( talk) 00:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was clear considering that the table to the right says they are divorced, but I added that word again to avoid all ambiguities. However, I do think the way it is worded now is definitely more neutral. "Divorce" is just one of those words that takes on a more negative connotation in verb form. "Getting a divorce" sounds less harsh than "divorcing your spouse" because it is less action based. Kind of like "getting an abortion" vs "aborting your baby". Both statements mean the same thing, but one clearly has a negative tone while the other a neutral one. I'm not trying to paint an overly positive picture of Rhee, but merely a more neutral one.
Regarding my other edits, I didn't remove any information that wasn't supported by the citations. I edited statements that weren't reflective of their cited sources so that they were more accurate. UMich215SSG ( talk) 00:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This article should be featured on some kind of "Worst of Wikipedia" list. The biggest weakness of Wikipedia is biased articles, and this article is the poster child. This week's Washington Times article does a good job explaining the campaign to attack Michelle Rhee, which unfortunately this Wikipedia article has become part of: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/24/the-battle-to-defame-michelle-rhee/?page=1 -- Westwind273 ( talk) 20:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
In the infobox her party is listed as Democratic. Why is this here? Is she an active member of the Democratic Party, or is this just her registration? She seems to work with politicians from both parties, doesn't run for office... The inclusion of party implies some relevance, but what would that be? Jd2718 ( talk) 14:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I am starting a discussion section here because I believe the edits I made to the article's section on vouchers were well-justified, but they have been quickly reverted with the reason given that someone feels they are "relevant" and "helpful". [3] Because of the quick and complete reversion of my changes, I am providing a lengthier discussion of my own reasons and I am editing out material in steps to facilitate further discussion, if necessary. KeptSouth (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I have requested a third opinion on this dispute, and the request is now listed on the active disagreement section. Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements -- KeptSouth ( talk) 20:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You can't be serious. I have addressed your assertions repeatedly. Kindly stop the baseless accusations and name calling. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Your argument to keep a redundant quote for dramatic literary effect in a Wikipedia bio had little or no basis in WP practice and became moot one hour later when I discovered the quote came from an OR transcription of a primary source that was posted on an advocacy blog site. [11] I have discussed all that in my edit summaries and in the discussion above. Reliably sourced alternative quotes and descriptions of her position are available. Your continued insistence on including primary source material original research and uncited statements is baffling, and indicates that a higher level of dispute resolution may be needed. What do you think about posting this issue on the BLP noticeboard?-- KeptSouth ( talk) 08:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, saw your listing on the 3O page. Without wanting to get bogged down in the details you have both been discussing, I wonder if it would be possible to get a list of relevant quotes that come from WP:RS's? This would exclude primary sources in the first instance I should think, but should include any analysis of comments made during the Presidential debate. I don't think it will take much work to reach a version all can agree on. MissionNPOVible ( talk) 06:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess I need to be more careful with my attempts at levity :-) On the more substantive issue, a RS is a RS. It isn't for us to judge bias, just to report what the sources say. The critical thing is that the source is reliable, and that we are unbiased in presenting the RS views - not that the RS's are unbiased per se. MissionNPOVible ( talk) 02:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The content that has been readded with a RS in relation to an organization the subject is related to in regards to Paul H. Scott should be reviewed. Per WP:BLP#Balance this content is not directly about the subject of the article and maybe used as an attack against the subject and should be modified to either be neutral per WP:NPOV or removed outright. The quotation is unnecessary, as are the actions of StudentsFirst, IMHO. Actions by the organization can be written about in an article about the organization itself, and not necessarily here on this BLP article, IMHO.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The subsection "Test erasures" is very poorly sourced and too long and gives the overall impression of being biased against Rhee. The first citation, which supports a sweeping statement, is to an opinion piece, not a WP:RS. Then there are a whole bunch of statistics and quotes with no citations whatsoever. On top of that the subject just doesn't seem to merit such extreme detail. I think a section about half the length -- or merging this subsection into the one before it, "Support and criticism" -- would be appropriate. As it stands now I'm adding a POV-section until I or someone else has the time to address these issues. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 07:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This article was listed for copyright evaluation on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 February 10. As an uninvolved administrator, I am only just now getting to look at it, and I do find content was placed in this article in a manner that does not accord with our copyright policies. For example, it previously featured a quote from Lord that not only copied the quote but also the interjection of the article writer and the attribution he supplied. Aside from a few preliminary words, it also copied several sentences on the ratio of cheating found.
My rewrite is primarily to address those concerns - we cannot copy copyrighted sources in a manner inconsistent with non-free content policy and guideline. Close paraphrasing must also be limited; Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing discusses this more. (See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
Some of the content in the article was also not consistent with BLP, and this has been corrected.
There is certainly significant coverage of this issue, but I am inclined to agree that it may be too much weight. I didn't reduce it, though, but simply summarized what I found to avoid any issues with potentially being seen as using copyright concerns to suppress coverage. I'd encourage those who have an interest in the subject to help out here, by shortening focus as appropriate, but please do not restore text that was removed without first making sure that it does not copy or closely paraphrase USA Today and that it is properly supported by that source. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Source | Article |
---|---|
At three of the award-winning schools — Phoebe Hearst Elementary, Winston Education Campus and Aiton Elementary — 85% or more of classrooms were identified as having high erasure rates in 2008. At four other schools, the percentage of classrooms in that category ranged from 17% to 58%. | At Phoebe Hearst Elementary, Winston Education Campus, and Aiton Elementary, 85% or more of classrooms were identified as having high erasure rates in 2008. At four other schools, the percentage of classrooms in that category ranged from 17% to 58%. |
I've rolled back your edits. They did not reflect the sources, and discarded significant content as opposed to summarizing it. I'll take a stab at a better sourced summary later tonight. aprock ( talk) 01:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want to improve the wording, please go ahead. If you think there is a problem with the current wording, please be more clear about what you think the problem is. If you think there is a copyright violation, be clear about what you think the violation is. aprock ( talk) 17:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You are free to make any constructive suggestions at any time. If the only content edits you have to contribute are reverts, it's not clear that you are going to get much traction. I'd you really have policy concerns, allow me to suggest you either be more clear about which content is causing such concerns or bring them to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock ( talk) 19:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues.
Frontline documentary on Michelle Rhee http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/education-of-michelle-rhee/
Criticism of Rhee's "Report Card" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/michelle-rhee-report-card_n_2427097.html -- Nbauman ( talk) 17:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding ignorant, there is such a title as "First Lady of Sacramento"? Nick O'Sea ( talk) 19:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"In 2008, 28% of African Americans supported Rhee, down from 50% in 2008." From the context, maybe the second "2008" should be 2010?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Rhee. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)