Talk:San Francisco Board of Education

NPOV
Several sentences need to be reworked to adhere to Neutral point of view: in general, all of the statements that contain no substantiation or attribution -- descriptions like "many" or "a faction" or unnamed "community leaders" -- these are not sufficient to describe sources. Examples include but are not limited to: Silicaslip (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "But a faction on the school board and in the community—far-left "progressive" and Green Party members—soon became hostile"
 * "but many in San Francisco continue to resent"
 * "Ackerman remained popular with community and parent leaders"


 * This a NPOV disaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.253.128.7 (talk • contribs)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sfusd logo.JPG
The image Image:Sfusd logo.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The image is no longer used in this article. I am removing the image cite.{Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)}

Split into San Francisco Board of Education Elections
There is a huge chunk of the article dedicated to election results from 2018. We could either split it into a separate list article listing all past and future elections or be like the general elections of SF and have each election be its own page. But a section dedicated to one giant table of results seems WP:UNDUE. — BriefEdits (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to split it then. — BriefEdits (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violation

 * The ending sentence of /*Racist statements against Asian-Americans by Commissioner Alison Collins*/ beginning at "the San Francisco Board of Education" and ending in "Special Meeting on March 25, 2021" was literally taken from the press release verbatim in its entirety. Per WP:COPYPASTE, just as you are not allowed to copy and paste the entirety of a newspaper or novel onto Wikipedia if they remain copyrighted, you can not copy and paste the entirety of a written document of a county school board according to California State Law because they can claim copyright. (Please refer to this FAQ page for more information) Therefore it's imperative that you stop reverting the edits that are summarizing the press release. If you have other concerns, feel free to include them in a new section below. — BriefEdits (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal by 2601:645:C001:4A40:5992:7D2B:8961:A48D (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC): BriefEdits's claim is dubious. Copyright violations generally don't apply to Press Releases, of which the San Francisco Board of Education specifically labeled, and of which I specifically cited as, a press release. Sincerely, 2601:645:C001:4A40:5992:7D2B:8961:A48D (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC).


 * According to the link I provided at FAQ/Copyright: While press releases are by nature intended to be reproduced widely, there is no inherent permission to alter them or create derivative works based on them, or to use them for commercial purposes. Accordingly, press releases are handled like other copyrighted content. In the absence of explicit disclaimer or permission, these may not be freely reproduced. — BriefEdits (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

BriefEdits
BriefEdits claims WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:RSEDITORIAL for a recent edit that removes the wording "nearly all" and replaces it with "nearly two dozen". BriefEdits says

''Avoid editorial as source for facts rather than attribution of opinion per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Reinstating previous edit regarding number of elected official. Wikipedia is about verifiability, WP:NOTTRUTH. All claims must be supported by the sources used (consensus is needed for differing views)''

The cited news sources which make make up literally almost all when describing the event, do not use the words "two dozen". They use the words "nearly unanimous" and "nearly all". These news sources, and these are not editorials, include San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, SFGATE, Los Angeles Times, and New York Times.

It is inaccurate and perhaps unethical and perhaps also WP:NOTTRUTH to delete the common phrase "nearly all" or "nearly unanimous" and replace the phrase with merely "two dozen".

The word choice for most of these news sources is likely for good reason, as the extent of the disapproval is more accurately depicted with a proportional description than merely a numeric one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C001:4A40:8C42:D63B:8702:D99F (talk • contribs)


 * 1. Please sign your comments with the four tildas ( ~ ) after each comment per Tips/How to sign comments. Thank you. 2. The inline source for and nearly all of San Francisco's current and past elected officials, including Mayor of San Francisco London Breed and San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Shamann Walton, had condemned the publicized tweets and called for Collins's resignation uses this SFGate source wherein the authors state "Nearly two dozen elected officials," therefore per WP:NOTTRUTH, we should use "nearly two dozen". The WP:ONUS is on you to prove otherwise and supply the proper inline citations to back up the claim. You can't list publications and expect me to know which articles or sources you are referencing. 3. Even then, the term "nearly all" is very close to a MOS:WEASELWORD. How many people is in the category of "all elected officials"? What percentage of that population size called for condemnation? Is it not more factual to ground the claim in a number than to deal with the ambiguities of "nearly all"? If the intent is to determine as you've said, "the extent of disapproval", providing a numerical response literally spells it out for you. — BriefEdits (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Will take a closer look tonight. Regards, 2601:645:C001:4A40:8C42:D63B:8702:D99F (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @BriefEdits, Request you abide by WP:BRD as I am as well. A more thorough reply is coming soon later tonight pacific daylight time, to answer all your questions. Thanks for being a respectful fellow editor for this article. Regards, 2601:645:C001:4A40:8C42:D63B:8702:D99F (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They replied with a decent explanation. That's discussion. Especially since this involves a living person, I don't think you should be using BRD as cover for your WP:BLP violation. Being "bold" doesn't excuse BLP violations and adding content not supported by the source provided is a clear cut BLP violation in my book. If you have these 'almost all' sources which 'use the words "nearly unanimous" and "nearly all"', you need to actually add them inline when you are editing the section to say something about a living person which is different from what the current source says. That would probably be decent bold editing. BriefEdit's is quite correct the source for that sentence which you modified says "Nearly two dozen elected officials" and nothing close to the words you used. The Fox News source you used earlier [//www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-alison-collins-trump-apology] at least does support the top 19 administrator bit although since this seems to clearly be politics, a better source would be desired per WP:RSPS but in any case also doesn't support 'nearly all' or 'nearly unanimous' either, it does say "widespread condemnation" but that's in general not specific to elected officials and also obviously isn't the same thing as "nearly all" which you added to the section. (But since the 19 top administrator bit is sourced and despite being Fox News, it's the sort of thing which is probably either true or not, I'd also be willing to accept it as bold editing.) Please remember you are the one responsible for finding and providing sources for statements you want to add, especially if you are going to edit existing text to suggest something is sourced when actually it isn't, no one else per WP:BURDEN. There's no point telling us these sources exist if you aren't going to provide them. Further on the BRD point, even if I accept your initial edit as bold editing, I don't think there's any need for further discussion on the specific "nearly all" issue until you provide these sources. We aren't going to include a claim just because it's allegedly supported by other sources and even assuming nearly two dozen is "nearly all", this seems too complicated for WP:CALC to apply. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne, @BriefEdits, It's now one am here in California where I am, and finally have a few minutes to review a bit further the discussion here. What I was going to do, was list every source already listed in the references section, and quote specifically what particular words were chosen, to point out was it a "nearly two dozen", or "nearly all" were the phrase found from each cited source.  I'm pretty confident that the majority of these sources will as I have been saying, say something to the effect "nearly all" rather than anything else.  That's going to take a bit more than a couple of minutes tonight, which I am wary to do that right now when I also need to sleep.  So I would encourage you to wait until tomorrow Thursday for me to compile that and present it to you.  Then let's see how true among the three of us has the most persuasive argument.  In the meantime, I suggest reviewing WP:VERIFYOR in detail as a guide as I well will before I venture into a comprehensive reply tomorrow morning. Regards, fellow editors, 2601:645:C001:4A40:8C42:D63B:8702:D99F (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep saying it's found in lots of sources. So far you've provided a sum total of zero sources which say that although it should be trivial to do so if so many sources support your change. If you would provide at least 3 sources which support your change, we can start to consider any change. While providing quotations of the part which you feel support your change can be helpful, in this case especially since we are using news sources it's probably not necessary. Note that if it turns out sources do support the change, and even if we come to consensus to change the article (there are still things to consider, especially the WP:Weasel words issue, BriefEdits was still right to revert you and you were still wrong to introduce the change in the manner you did. As I said, you need to provide sources at the time you make a change, especially when you are changing a section which is already sourced to say something which is not supported by the existing source. You cannot make a change just because you know other sources exit which support your change without providing these sources at the time, again especially when you introduce a sourcing error so that the text is not supported by the given source. It's good that you've learning our Wikipedia policies and guidelines but there's probably no need to keep linking to them We all know them, probably better than you as you lack of knowledge of them seems to be a big part of why you keep having trouble. Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Lawsuit detailing
Most of the details that was brought up in the article revolve around the procedures surrounding the vote. However, per WP:EXCESSDETAIL, we do not need an indiscriminate collection of everything brought up in the lawsuit because it is not useful for the reader when they can be summarized in one to two sentences. Thoughts? - BriefEdits (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that such a large portion dedicated to one lawsuit that has just been filed is WP:UNDUE as it detracts from the section's focus on the board's actions on Lowell's admission policy. - BriefEdits (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @BriefEdits, I mentioned earlier in the remarks when I made an edit, is that WP:EXCESSDETAIL claim is not substantial. Detail is more important. - Describing a lawsuit without proper explanation is not fair to the reader, especially when the source has the explanation of the lawsuit. Looking at the severe cut made by you as a form possibly constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV and looks like you are conducting active editorializing WP:EDITORIAL. Furthermore, saying the supporting sentences are "indiscriminate" downplays the importance of laying out in clarity the lawsuit's description. Also, it's way too early to be making severe cuts to just added content. Your impulsive propensity to delete several sentences seem way too drastic to be defended with a WP:NPOV in mind. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @BriefEdits, Let's see. I'm looking at the title of the section. It says Ending Lowell High School's merit-based admissions policy. How is it WP:UNDUE to add a lawsuit filed yesterday that is about the Board's Ending Lowell High School's merit-based admission policy on the grounds of California's Open meetings act?  Looks like to me it fits, and deleting these additions by you looks like you're editorializing WP:EDITORIAL under the guise of WP:UNDUE.  We have to keep WP:NPOV in mind. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The section is about Lowell High School's merit-based admission policy, but the article is about the Board of Education. Everything in this article should be in service of the main WP:TOPIC. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It is WP:UNDUE to simply list all the grievances against the Board by one lawsuit simply because it is covered. Most of the points you've listed essentially boils down to what I have written: "improperly listing the resolution and providing an inadequate amount of time for public comment and review". Points 1 and 4 relates to the improper listing. Points 2, 3, 6, 7 all relate to allotted timing for comment and review. The closest analogy I can think of is the mention of the Ninety-five Theses in Catholic Church; it would be undue to dedicate too much space to the 95 theses in detail in the section about protestantism on the article dedicated to the Catholic Church. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2601: What BriefEdits said. But also, if the lawsuit was filed yesterday, it's likely fairly difficult to establish any real significance for it. Frankly, even have two sentences is already a lot. We definitely to not need a whole paragraph. Also why one earth are you using Ballotpedia as a source? Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @BriefEdits, the board is being accused of violating California Open Meeting Act, and has already been filed as a lawsuit. That's pretty significant.  Removing the detail by you is a form of creating a point of view that is very biased. WP:NPOV The section should be balanced with the public's questioning of the actions by the board to end the merit-based admissions the way it did.  -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne, see above. If the content is available in numerous sentences in the source and each sentence does help the reader understand further, there's no reason to omit the detail. Until there's a better source of the California Open Meeting Act, why not list Ballotpedia? Is there is a question that the source is incorrect?  By the way, the section needs to be balanced.  Just saying why the board voted for ending merit-based admissions is only half the description of the topic.  A very significant point is the procedure may have violate open meeting laws in the way the resolution was presented before coming to a vote.  Enumerating the supporting arguments the board may have violated open meeting laws serves to make the supporting sentences more readable. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely zero need to cite the act unless you are engaging in WP:OR. Yes there are plenty of reasons to admit the details, all have already been outlined above. Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd still suggesting finding a source that explicitly links the two if you want to merit its inclusion per WP:NOTTRUTH. It's also more efficient to include it in the summarized version than to include the exhaustive list that you wrote per the previous discussion. In regards to Ballotpedia, it is a bit of contentious source because it has in the past lacked editorial oversight. It's inclusion is a little difficult to ascertain because they don't have a public edit history to my knowledge but you're much better reading up on the community discussion at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. — BriefEdits (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @BriefEdits, could you instead of using "its" and "two" as pronouns in your last remarks, name specifically to what you are referring each of these pronouns? I'm having trouble understanding with the liberal use of pronouns in your last remarks. I want to understand what you're saying. As far as the link you provided Reliable sources/Perennial sources, it says Ballotpedia is no longer an open wiki and instead edited by a group of editors.  Ballotpedia article says that Ballotpedia seems to be used recently by well known news outlets. Perhaps your understanding of Ballotpedia may be a bit dated?  It's no longer an open wiki.  As far as providing a balanced description of the section "Ending...", the addition of the recent lawsuit arguing California open meeting laws were violated, seems appropriate to be described comprehensively as a paragraph with several supporting sentences.  I strongly recommend when making an argument for removal of content that you do not make the mistake of violating WP:NPOV or WP:EDITORIAL under the guise of saying WP:NOTTRUTH or WP:UNDUE.  -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne, see above. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't really give a fuck about the San Francisco Board of Education and this is too minor an issue for me to really care, so I probably will withdraw from this. But I have removed Ballotpedia. The source does not mention the lawsuit in any way, so it's completely irrelevant. Even if it did mention the lawsuit, I don't see what its relevance it would provide as a questionable source per RSPS. I have left the sentence it was source to intact since it seems to be supported by the existing source which thankfully does mention the lawsuit as well. Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne, Clearly using profanity WP:F*** in your remarks on this talk page raises red flags. Your actions have led to allegations of edit warring by @El_C and El_C has protected the page for seven days, depriving the article from being edited by readers for seven days if they choose to remain anonymous. Additionally, if I were you, I would have explained myself further using supporting information in a persuasive manner on this talk page, instead doing what you're doing that destroys the process of the community from contributing to a wikipedia page.  It is more clear now that allegations of violating rules outlined in WP:TALK WP:TPNO WP:VANDALISM WP:DISRUPT WP:BITE WP:POINT WP:GF might be plausible in your behavior.  To be honest with you, if you had made the edit of removing the Ballotpedia citation without the additional profanity on the talk page, I think it stands to reason, both editors of this article and readers of this article would have greatly benefited. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

RE: about me protect[ing] the page for seven days, [thereby] depriving the article from being edited by readers for seven days if they choose to remain anonymous. Not sure what that "anonymous" bit is about. The article is fully protected (admin level). Nobody can edit it right now. Which is to say: while the protection request at WP:RFPP sought for semiprotection to be imposed, I opted to go with full protection (diff). El_C 13:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @El_C, It seems to me your actions may need WP:RFC. Why fully protect when the request was semi protect? And why semi protect without discussing on the talk page first? -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * IP, that is not what RfCs are for. In answer to your question: I fully protected because I noticed significant edit warring (15 or so reverts in the last couple of days). And I'm not obliged to grant the specific request with respect to the remedy sought, nor is there an expectation for me to discuss the protection with disputants, here on the article talk page, prior to applying it. El_C 13:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @El_C Requesting the assistance of recently active admins: @Canley, @Bagumba, @JoJan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm expressly giving my permission for any uninvolved admin to act in this matter as they see fit. They are free to adjust my protection, or lift it outright. I need not be consulted or even notified. El_C 13:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comment. I don't give a fuck about the San Francisco Board of Education and so will be withdrawing from this discussion and dispute. There's no reason why stating that affects the legitimacy of my edits. Nor will readers see my comments. I did not inappropriately edit the article by expressing my lack of care for the board on the article which could reasonably be construed as vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne, Flagging WP:DISRUPT and WP:F*** this unsightly behavior by you. There are reasonable guidelines set out in WP:TALK when using a talk page. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you keep linking to a page which says " in the hatnote since at no stage have I ever suggested including the word fuck in the article. In any case, it's well accepted that even telling someone to "fuck off" isn't always incivil per WP:FUCKSCONTEXT. Considering all I ever said was I WP:DGAF about the board, I'm not sure why you keep harping on about it. For better or worse, if you can't tolerate seeing the word fuck in a talk page you probably aren't going to last long here. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW I support the full protection. The alternative is probably to partially block me, the IP and BriefEdits although as I said, I won't be editing the article anymore. I disagree with reducing to semi-protection since although it will probably stop the edit-warring and as much as I disagree with the IP's edits, it would IMO unfairly privilege editors with accounts without sufficient reason. I'd note that AFAIK, besides the removal of the ballotpedia source by me, the IP's edits which I disagree with are in the WP:WRONGVERSION protected, so it's not like I'm supporting this because it's my preferred version either. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

New article for the recall elections
I created a new article to expand more about the recall elections: 2022 San Francisco Board of Education recall elections PacificDepths (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove "Response to 1906 earthquake"
This section has no citations, and the template has been there since March 2021. If no one objects after a few days, I will remove the section. PacificDepths (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like enough time has elapsed so I'll remove it. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate it! PacificDepths (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)