Talk:Lily Eskelsen García

Born in 2012?
The lead currently states that Eskelsen was born in 2012. This should be updated. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

new section "Controversial . . ."
The new section entitled "Controversial Statement Regarding Special Needs Students" raises several issues: 1- It is not neutral in tone. The 'other side needs to be represented. In Eskelsen Garcia's apology http://lilysblackboard.org/2015/11/a-message-from-lily/ she makes it clear that her remarks were not in fact about disabled students. 2 - In an article about a living person, material that is potentially libelous must be deleted. 3 - The final reason it should be deleted: it is not Encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the comment section, it is not Twitter. Even if the tone were neutral, even if the claims were true in an uncontroversial way, the incident does not merit a whole section in an encyclopedia biography.

I plan to delete the section. Please respond here if you disagree. --Thelema12 (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I placed the following request on User talk:63.105.50.19: "Please do not simply revert edits without entering into discussion on the talk page of the article. You might have good updates for the article Lily Eskelsen García, but they will be deleted unless you address the concerns and explain why they are encyclopedic. Please discuss. Thank you. --Thelema12 (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)"--Thelema12 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I will be reinstating the section shortly after addressing the points above: 1. While 'the other side needs to be represented' is not listed AFAIK as a requirement for maintaining a neutral tone, I would agree that her explanation of the comments should be included. An explanation of controversial comments is not an absolute arbiter of intent, as declared above, but it merits inclusion. I do not know her intent and likely never will, however, as the section stated, the remarks are undoubtedly controversial. 2. The material presented is referenced thoroughly from credible sources. The original remarks are clearly heard in the original referenced video, not muffled or mistakable. The organizations that have denounced the comments (as referenced) are rather replete with attorneys, in particular COPAA which is, in part, an attorney's organization. The claim that reporting on 1. Original unmistakable, recorded remarks 2. The reaction from a community that includes a significant number of attorneys (who, as members of the board of COPAA, endorsed the condemnation of the remarks) is somehow libelous in any way, shape, or form seems a rather extreme stretch. 3. This is the first time in a rather stellar career that Ms. García has had to apologize for public remarks and the fact that a petition is circulating calling for her resignation make this a significant event. It merits inclusion for these two reasons.

I'll ignore the personal insult, however "please don't edit my pages unless I ok it" is really not all that compelling.

Georgekwatson (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

George, thank you for engaging in dialog. I appreciate the discussion. I also think your new version, referencing her apology, strikes a more neutral tone. My ongoing concern is really about how to put this in context. I guess I don't think Wikipedia is a good place to cover current events in detail. It's a question of balance. Do you feel like the controversy merits as much space in the article as her entire term as UEA president? Do you feel that it is as big a chunk of her biography as her run for Congress? Should the article give more space to this week's events than to the week she was elected NEA president? I'm hoping the new stuff can find its proper context, perhaps in a larger article with a section covering the many controversies in which the leader of a politically active union will inevitably become embroiled. Thanks again. --Thelema12 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strange relationship with current events and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon. It's an especially difficult proposition when a 'current event' and 'biography of a living person' collide. To use a particularly egregious example, would it have been the right decision to add a section to Bill Cosby's biography when the first allegation of sexual assault came out? He was a much loved figure, with reams of biographical material and yet a section describing just this initial allegation would have been 'larger' in scope than some of his noteworthy achievements. In hindsight, the answer is obvious, but I can imagine being the first editor trying to report that there had been an allegation, wondering what place this had in the biography of a living 'great' man. It would not have been libelous, after all, you are just stating that there had been an allegation, but it would have stuck out in a pretty noticeable way. I think the section on Ms. García's page may end up being re-written again because there will likely be discussions and some resolution beyond just the apology. Georgekwatson (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lily Eskelsen García. 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://archive.is/20130125181313/http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/nes/2009/4/7/lily_eskelsen_teacher_rises_to_executive.htm to http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/nes/2009/4/7/lily_eskelsen_teacher_rises_to_executive.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901182633/http://www.nea.org/home/1694.htm to http://www.nea.org/home/1694.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)