Talk:Michelle Rhee

Tags

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)

I find the ending section talking about Ms. Rhee's children and husband to be potentially inappropriate. They are properly sourced, but should be considered during a re-write. I did not place the tone/inappropriate tags on the page, so the originator may have other ideas why it was tagged this way. DutchTreat (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited the "Personal life" section to remove some information on Rhee's family, and have removed the tone tag. --Cjs56 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Personal Life section entirely. Its very existence seemed to me in not keeping with an encyclopedic tone. Rhee is notable for one very good reason, so information about her family in the body of the article seems trivial. I left the info in the infobox. Also, I apologize for not knowing how to fix the messed-up reference list at the bottom of the article now. A little help, please, or please restore the personal life section if you strongly disagree. Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 13:22, 12 June 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)

its a wild shot, but shes not relaited to Syngman Rhee right?? they have symilaryl distinctiv enatesm but is undersnt ad tin f the la ot m Smith Jones (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Politics section

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)

• Hobit done good by my way of thinking. The "politics" section said nothing and said it poorly. --Cjs56 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hangul

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)

I have no idea how having her Korean name would make a claim that she's a foreigner. On the other hand, the infobox on the article directly states that she is American. If the Hangul just spells out her English name, I would agree with the removal. But the Hangul actually spells out her Korean name, which is another name she has beside her English name. I'm reverting. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll add {{cn}} to that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference added[1]. First sentence says "한국명 이양희" - Korean Name Yi Yanghŭi. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sufficient. Does not indicate she actually uses it in the U.S. Even the source calls her 미셸 리 as primary name. Added {{rs}}. Bring me a US birth-certificate or passport/ID-copy that shows this name. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You know that's nearly impossible to find online. And a US birth certificate would definitely not have this name. Chosun Ilbo is a major newspaper in South Korea. It's reliable. Yeah the source transliterates her English name, but I'm not trying to rename the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that whatever some Korean newspaper writes is pretty much useless here. We don't give Shinseki in Japanese, either, though I'm sure you'll find Japanese newspapers spelling it エリック・シンセキ. Both Rhee and Shinseki are American -- what foreign newspapers write isn't relevant here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that we cannot use foreign newspapers as sources? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

We certainly can use foreign newspapers as a source, but not when it comes to the spelling of people's names, unless they are foreigners. Thus my initial question: is Rhee a citizen of Korea (North or South), or possibly, was she born in Korea? Neither case seems to apply. (One example for the latter case would be this one general, who was born in Georgia...what's his face... John Shalikashvili) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly - Is this a WP policy? Or an arbitrary rule that you made up? Secondly - Like I said before, this is not a spelling of Rhee's name in Korean. It is another name that she has. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can read Hangul, so I see it's a different name. As far as policy goes, I would sum it up under WP:BLP, but I am unable to find anything more there. The naming policy for people seems to only apply to the article's title. (To make this clear: I won't edit-war you on this, it's not really that important to me; I am just somewhat dumbstruck right now that no-one seems to have brought it up anywhere, for any biography, apparently... so I'll remove the {{rs}} for now, and will raise the question over at the guidelines. We'll see what they say...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So we have an answer (that's not really enlightening, I admit) which points to WP:BLP. Since there is no indication that Rhee actually uses this name, I'll reinsert {{rs}} Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:17, 25 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)

RfC:

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)

• I would suggest putting it in the infobox rather than the lead. See my edit and decide if you like it. Since her parents immigrated from Korea, she probably has a "real" Hangul writing of her name, but you are right that we cannot be sure. The Korean Wikipedia gives her name also as 미셸 리. A somewhat similar case is Steven Chu who is Chinese-American. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you can source it, go ahead and put it in. It's not unusual for the American descendants of immigrants to have names in the tongue of the mother country that they mostly do not use. Ray^Talk 17:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems there was a consensus to include the name, however, I don't see why the description cannot be shortened for readability and to avoid undue emphasis, especially since she was US born. So, I removed links to the WP articles on Hangul, systems of transliteration, and the less modern of the two "romanized" spellings. I also put this condensed version of the other name in the lead, where it's usually found.[2]. If someone wants to move it back to the infobox, that's ok with me, but the usual treatment is to put the names in the lead, see e.g. Sukhee Kang. KeptSouth (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Firings section

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)

Examiner is blocked?

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)

• Whole thing is a mess. Examiner.com was a series of real papers, now it is a mismash of RSes and wiki-like things. The powers that be refuse to remove the blacklist. One of the articles used _was_ bad and I've removed it. Two I could link to the washingtonexaminer.com website. One looked like it was the WashingtonExaminer, but I couldn't find it on their site. I've also cleaned up a lot of recent unsourced stuff... Bah. Hobit (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted info

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)

Rhee's actions as Chancellor and data on impact

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)

• • looks good. As I commented on your talk page, please don't add major sections like that and tag them as minor, also an edit summary would be helpful. I probably spent 3-4 minutes trying to figure out exactly what you and the IP had done. Hobit (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Rhee's actions as teacher, balance against POV tilt

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)

Biased Article

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)

• Could you provide quotes you have an issue with? The poor evaluations part is factually true, though you are free to add a RS (and the one you link to above is certainly fine) that there is disagreement about the evaluation process (though I'd say that's pretty obvious, I've never seen an evaluation process for ranking people that didn't have disagreement). I'd actually claim the article tilts too far the other way. One solution is to create a "criticisms of" sub-section in the "Tenure as chancellor of D.C. Public Schools" section and move all the issues into that subsection. It tends to work better, in my experience, than the "statement, refute statement" structure. In general the criticisms section should be smaller (say 50-75%) than the main section.

Just so my POV is known: I fully agree that there are massive criticisms out there about her and her work in DC. I, for one, think that accountability is needed and evaluations are needed, but have no idea the best form for doing them. As a parent I hate the tests and the teaching they inspire. As a teacher I hate being evaluated via a metric I don't believe in. As a person with an interest in educational research I recognize there needs to be some way to evaluate new programs and the success of schools. And all of those backgrounds make me believe we need to figure out which teachers need to be removed. Did MR do it right? No. Was she closer than most? Not sure. I do think she's prompted a useful discussion though. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm assuming you mean specific lines/statements in this article that I'd take issue with? Ryanov (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yep. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the passage about taping mouths shut. There was no reason for this removal given on this page. Removal strikes me as favorable POV.Gogue2 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2011 (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)

Achieving balance in an article on a controversial subject like Michelle Rhee is always going to be a challenge and an iterative process. Previously many editors were thought the article was slanted towards Rhee and that the contained a large amount of unsupported or promotional content. If you have specific concerns about NPOV, I encourage you to edit the article or bring your concerns to the talk page. Greg Comlish (talk) 14:07, 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)

• As a long-time lurker of Wikipedia, with only a handful of revisions, I was upset enough about the tone of this article to find my way to it's discussion page to leave this comment. It's clear that the authors of this article have a pony in the race. Its quality, although detailed, lacks the caliber of objectivity found in other wikipedia articles. I hope someone with the time and discipline will find time to rewrite this so that it can be a credible source for those researching topics related to education.

• I too have just become a user because this article is so shameful. It is ALL POV, and there are more than a few factual errors, all of which serve to promote a negative image of Rhee. As someone knowledgeable of the sources and the reality, I or someone like me can rewrite it objectively and with comprehensive sources, not just selective ones in the current article. But what would prevent all the others with clear POVs from re-editing to suit themselves? --Dc elder (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If the article contains serious inaccuracies, then these need to be addressed promptly. Please identify the claims in the article that you believe are false and I will try to help get them addressed. Greg Comlish (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed the "scare quotes" around school reformers. If you have a problem with the phrase please explain what it is... Hobit (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't need quotes, but we do need a citation to note which group of people are being referred to as "School Experts". I restored the tag as per WP:WEASEL. Not all school reformers embrace Michelle Rhee. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds quite reasonable. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 9 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)

If you want the article to be improved then you can either improve it yourself or at least be specific about what the problems are so that another editor can understand your issue. Instead of saying the article has a "liberal bias" maybe you could describe how you feel that bias is manifest and what could be done to fix it. Greg Comlish (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Compare the article on Randi Weingarten to the article on Michelle Rhee. Compare the amount of ink devoted to criticism in each article. Why is it so different? I don't know how much more specific I can be than that. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's Randi Weingarten? Greg Comlish (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randi_Weingarten Who is Michelle Rhee? --Westwind273 (talk) 03:51, 14 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)

Well I just changed some things, changed some negative wording to sound more neutral. I tried to keep as much of the content the same as possible, but I did modify a couple sources and changed sentences that did not reflect their source material. I added a couple of categories to help improve the organization of the article. I still think it might need some more work though. UMich215SSG (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with some of your perspective. Saying that "Michelle Rhee is divorced" does not unfairly paint Rhee in a 'negative light'. Her divorce is just a fact. Some people regard that as negative. Some people don't. But something being 'negative' has never itself been grounds for removing information. Replacing facts with ambiguous euphemisms engenders a POV and at the same time it degrades the article quality by creating bizarre ambiguities. What happened to her husband? Is he alive? Was he discovered to have a prior legal marriage, thus nullifying his marriage to Rhee? It's much better to just let the article be clear about what happened. And, in general, I think it's a horrible idea to start removing encyclopedic content from an article simply because it can be said to paint somebody in a 'negative light'. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:28, 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)

I'm sure that the allies of Rhee would prefer that this article more closely resembled an opinion piece from the most conservative daily newspaper in America. Greg Comlish (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Greg, you need to study the Wikipedia guidelines with regard to civility on talk pages. Sarcastic remarks have no place here. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

When was I being sarcastic? Greg Comlish (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Greg on the Washington Times and its opinion pieces - particularly the one Westwind has linked - there are some obvious misstatements of fact in the piece. I do think we can add some more balance, perhaps by adding some of her responses to the criticism, but we should use reliable sources. I have already added one of her explanations for the discrepancy between the results she stated on her resume, and the reported test results, and I have trimmed some of the negative verbiage as well as puffery.--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Party

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)

As far as I can tell, it's just her registration, and she is not politically active as a Democrat. However, her party affiliation is often cited as evidence that liberals and conservatives agree on school reforms such as vouchers and privatization, so I think her party registration is significant enough for the infobox. KeptSouth (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Rhee's opinion on vouchers

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)

• • First of all, sorry, I really should have done a more careful job than just mass-reverting that section. I felt some of the changes you made that day were good, some bad. But most of the ones I had a problem with were in that section and I didn't see anything I felt was an actual improvement there, so I reverted the whole thing where I could have left the change I was neutral on (and looking again was actually a positive). As a warning, I'm not likely to be able to respond again until tonight or (more likely) tomorrow morning. Work calls (loudly). Hobit (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have re-removed this sentence - about the presidential debates, as it seems very tangential to bio of Rhee (a summary of her life story) that US presidential candidates had different opinions about her opinion on vouchers and that they expressed this in their in 3rd debate of fall, 2008. It is also not supported by the reference given & even if relevant, which it is not, it is not informative to readers as it does not say which candidate had which opinion. --KeptSouth (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I strongly believe the fact that her opinion was a part of the presidential debate is quite relevant. Heck, we could pretty easily have articles on someone mostly because they are brought up in a debate (Joe the Plumber comes to mind as an extreme example). I'd say that if someone were writing a 1 page bio on her this would certainly be a part of it. I've not yet looked closely at the cited source, but given it is true and was on literally all the major TV channels, there is coverage. Hobit (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Removed this sentence that she continued her support of vouchers - no indication of when, mere verbiage in this context, gives no further information to the reader and not supported. --KeptSouth (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with that. Hobit (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Removed this phrase: she said. “I would never accept that for my child so I was never going to put any other mother in that situation because it is a repetition of the same idea expressed in the same paragraph which is: "Rhee argued that if she would not send her kids to a particular school, she should not expect other parents to, either." KeptSouth (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I again disagree here. It is a common writing technique to summarize a quote and then give the quote.

Bob indicated he didn't like the idea, "Mary, I really don't think this is going to work out".

I think a quote in this context is powerful and provides insight into her thought process. If we had to choose between the summary and the quote, I'd pick the quote, but A) I prefer both and B) I think it would be hard to make the text flow with just the quote. Hobit (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Finally, there are long quotes that a wiki editor transcribed from an original source, an eight minute long video of a speech given by Rhee posted on what appears to be an interest group website. It is original research to transcribe and cull these out particular quotes, and therefore these quotes do not belong in this article per WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. For now, I am leaving them, but will remove them tomorrow if no cogent argument is made to override WP guidelines. Here are the quotes and other material based on a Wikipedia editor's transcription and personal determination of significance: "I was not willing to say to these parents and say to these mothers, ‘You know what? Just give me five years, right? Just take one for the team. Your kid may not learn how to read and write and do math for those five years, but this is what is good for the system,’” she said. She said she came under criticism from friends, saying she was “going against the party.” She called the whole experience “an epiphany.” --KeptSouth (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have changed my mind, and am removing these quotes now for the reasons given above. They are OR, PRIMARY, not compliant with WP guidelines. Please discuss below if you wish to restore this inappropriate material. I would suggest that there are likely some reliable sources wherein she discusses her opinion on vouchers, and adding material from these sources would be a perfect work-around to this OR problems. KeptSouth (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There is, as far as I can tell, no problem with using a primary source to extract a quote. The issue is if a given quote is relevant is certainly a case of OR, but frankly so is any decision about distilling a large number of sources down to a short Wikipedia article. I don't see this as being any more OR than anything else. Primary sources can't be interpreted, but a direct quote isn't that. Could you point out what part of WP:OR you feel is being violated here? Hobit (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In all cases, I'm not overly found of you reverting at this point. WP:BRD suggests at this point we discuss before you re-revert... Hobit (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

To avoid a false impression, I will recap what has occurred thus far. I made some changes, in the School choice and school vouchers section; gave some reasons in the edit summary.[4] Hobit quickly reverted them with exceedingly little explanation.[5] I reintroduced the changes I had made,[6],[7], and upon reflection and review of the references given, I made new copy edits in a step by step fashion, removing repetition unsuited and unnecssary for an encyclopedia article[8] a possibly misleading pov term[9] and removing original research/transcription by a Wiki editor of a speech posted on an advocacy-non reliable source website [10]. Finally, I added a quote from Rhee on the very topic of school vouchers, that was actually published in a reliable source, The Wall Street Journal. At the same time, I provided complete explanations and diffs on this talk page to facilitate discussion. No policies have been violated, no edit war has occurred yet, and we began discussing further changes. However, upon careful reading of Hobit's responses it seems the discussion is now circular, with Hobit saying transcription by a Wikipedia editor is not impermissible research, and that the text should simply not be changed because of Hobits strong feelings of relevancy. My view is that further statements of Rhee re. school voucher and public monies going to private schools can be be added if found in reliable secondary sources, as I have already done with the WSJ quote. It is likely that a third opinion is needed, and perhaps I will seek one.KeptSouth (talk) 19:22, 14 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)

Wow. I think discussion might have worked but you've just ignored my comments entirely (or at least not responded to them in any way) and jumped to dispute resolution. Ah well. I'm still willing to discuss this, but welcome any third opinions... Hobit (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, basically you ignored my comments, and re-iterated your original thoughts. At some point in this chain, it's time to call for a third opinion, and as aspersions were already being cast on my actions, and this article needs improvement in several areas, not just on the voucher's section, I decided it was time to move on and ask for another view. There is nothing wow about an informal non binding third opinion - it's the most primary and simple method. KeptSouth (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've no objection to the third party. But you first complained I only commented via edit summary (which was a fair comment). When I responded on the talk page (with a lot more detail) you're saying that I was simply reiterating my thoughts? Arg. I was expecting you to address my comments and have a discussion. But we can wait for others to jump in instead. Hobit (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I never complained that you commented only via edit summary. What I did say was that I would lay out my own reasoning for changes I would be making, and that is what I did. In my view, your response mainly reiterated your edit summary, and was almost completely non-responsive to the points I had made. You gave reasons for the reverting the changes such as: the later version was not an improvement, you "strongly believe it is relevant", and "There is...no problem with using a primary source". These are not issues for discussion but rather, are assertions that leave little room for discussion. That is why I asked for a third opinion. I reasonably saw a stalemate, a circular and repetitive discussion, and acted to prevent an edit war, and to hopefully move to a resolution, and on to other article improvements.

As I have pointed out, there are effective and alternative ways of describing Rhee's views on vouchers and school choice that do not rely at all on primary sources, or original research transcriptions, and to that end, I added a quote published in the Wall Street Journal which expresses the same thought as the omitted OR material. That said, more work needs to be done on this article, and I would just as soon move on to it, rather than beat dead horses repeatedly.--Regards-- KeptSouth (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's take one of these for example. You claimed the quote about her children and vouchers was redundant to the text before it. I argued that a quote is a powerful thing and that the redundancy was a standard way for text to be written. However, I was also willing to go with just the quote if it could be made to work. As your only objection to the quote was the redundancy I'd think that would solve the problem. In another case, the presidential debate, I explained why I think it's relevant. You never responded. Certainly if *my* opinion were discussed in a presidential debate it would end up in my 2 paragraph obit--it would be a really a big deal. You've not provided any reason to believe it won't be in hers. Is she really so remarkably accomplished that her nationwide exposure on all broadcast channels isn't relevant? In any case, I've tried to address your points. You may feel I did a horrible job, but I certainly tried. You've ignored mine. Frankly that's just rude. As was not following BRD. I am non-the-less trying to communicate. I'd appreciate it if you tried the same. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 15 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)

I'll simply point out you never responded to any comment I made on the substance of the issues. Not one. I'm quite willing to discuss them, but you've simply labeled my comments as "assertions" and not responded. The statements in question aren't uncited, I've no idea where you are getting _that_ from. It is the first time you've used that word in this discussion. Could you clarify? Rather than discussing the discussion can you please walk my comments, made above, and explain what you disagree with and why? Please? Hobit (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

3O

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)

Thanks for your response. No cite has ever been provided for the Presidential Debate mention. Perhaps that's because it's hard to find one, and she was never mentioned by name. Right now, I'm not sure I can really find an RS analyzing it that is not a really slanted opinion piece. I also think mentioning that the candidates disagreed on whether she supported vouchers to send DC students to public school in 2008, followed by her office's contemporaneous ambiguous statement that she had not really taken a position on vouchers - is of limited value in this bio, and makes her sound like a waffler, which she isn't. So perhaps before we look at whether there's some decent analysis of it, we should look at what was said in the debate.

Here is a source that does not include a lot of opinion that quotes the transcript. It's a weblog from Korea, not sure if it's a RS, but it's possibly a good starting point.[12] Apparently she was never mentioned by name, and it certainly seems to me that this is all more about the McCain and Obama's positions on education reform than it is about Rhee:

OBAMA: I’ll just make a quick comment about vouchers in D.C. Senator McCain’s absolutely right: The D.C. school system is in terrible shape, and it has been for a very long time. And we’ve got a wonderful new superintendent there who’s working very hard with the young mayor there to try…

MCCAIN: Who supports vouchers.

OBAMA: … who initiated — actually, supports charters.

MCCAIN: She supports vouchers, also.

OBAMA: But the — but here’s the thing, is that, even if Senator McCain were to say that vouchers were the way to go — I disagree with him on this, because the data doesn’t show that it actually solves the problem — the centerpiece of Senator McCain’s education policy is to increase the voucher program in D.C. by 2,000 slots. That leaves all of you who live in the other 50 states without an education reform policy from Senator McCain.

MCCAIN: Because there’s not enough vouchers; therefore, we shouldn’t do it, even though it’s working. I got it.

Regarding sources for her more recent position on vouchers I will look and respond later, but I think the WSJ quotes aren't bad for now. They indicate her support for vouchers, and the reason for her support. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Added a RS - Atlanta Journal Constitution re. Rhee's position on vouchers w/quote. Beyond this it seems to get kind of repetitious - she simply thinks they are a good thing to have.KeptSouth (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks KeptSouth. I can understand Hobit's perspective, I think I'd want my obit to include that kind of info too! From this extract (regardless of provenance at this stage) it does seem that they are referring to Rhee in the debate. However, even if she was used by name, and especially given the fact that she isn't (assuming this is the only relevant material from the debate), including it in this article is a pretty clear example of WP:OR. It would really need to come from a secondary source that draws the connection between the debate and Rhee, but even a slanted opinion piece, if it's from a RS, would qualify. So perhaps the first step is to establish whether there is a RS drawing this connection at all since that seems to be the weak link currently. MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt they are referring to Rhee, but I believe the issue is whether this fleeting reference is significant to her life story. She is nationally famous for many other things that are well documented by reliable sources. I did not know that a random Wikipedian's obituary wish list was the standard for inclusion in living person bios. If I am wrong on this, please cite the WP policy or guideline.

As to the substance of the candidates' debate comments - they seem to be more about the candidates' opinions on school reform than Rhee's, and her office's response did little to clarify her position on vouchers.

Regardless of whether the debate reference is included or not, I don't see why you think this opens the door to allowing a slanted opinion piece. The lack of a reference should never be a reason or an excuse introducing bias. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 02:17, 18 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)

I think this settles the debate ref issue: "Then-candidate Barack Obama endorsed Rhee in a 2008 debate as a 'wonderful new superintendent' ". That's probably the extent of the acknowledgment required too... MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Relation of subject to Paul Scott

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)

Rhee is the founder, leader and primary spokesperson for StudentsFirst. It is entirely appropriate to discuss the authorized actions of the organization under her tenure as part of Rhee's biographical article. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

However, this isn't an article about the organization StudentsFirst, but a biography of the subject Michelle Rhee. Additionally, the quote from Bobbie Walton is not related to the subject, and therefore should be removed.

I will notify related wikiprojects of this discussion per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

By your argument, we would remove everything about DC Schools since this is an article about Michelle Rhee and not DC Schools. But since Michelle Rhee was the head of DC, it is appropriate to discuss the actions and controversies of her administration in this article. Likewise, it is appropriate to include the actions and controversies of StudentsFirst. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Actions directed by her, that a verifiable would warrant inclusion, IMHO.

For instance if a teacher of a school did X, but the subject of the article did not direct the action of X to occur, should that be included in the article if it had no impact on the subject of this article?

The statement above would support the following, if I am understanding the other editors comments correctly; X occurred in Y organization, that is not verified to have occurred without the instruction/direction/involvement of the subject of the article, then because X occurred in Y organization it should be mentioned in all individuals articles who are members in organization Y whether or not it is verified to have occurred due to the actions the subject of the article.

Can we verify that the subject of this article instruction/direction or was involved that lead to action X, or reacted to reaction of action X?

So far I have not seen it verified that the subject directed actions or was directly involved in the support of the Paul H. Scott campaign; therefore I see that the content related to that as not needing to be in this article, or at the very least, that said content needs to be summarized.

At present the quote is unnecessary.

Now criticism of her reform efforts done in a manor consistent with WP:NEU and WP:WEIGHT would warrant inclusion.

Now if the subject of this article publicly stated her support of the Paul H. Scott during the recall attempt then content relating to her group would be more likely to warrant inclusion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Test erasures

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)

Content not verified by a source can be removed per WP:BURDEN. Additionally, if a source is an opinion piece, it can be used to verify what someone's opinion is, therefore the content should be attributed to the source saying X wrote in Y that Z.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Basically all the statistics are justified in the USA Today article cited. Feel free to add more citations as you feel they are needed. It's also fairly trivial to add citations to justify the statement "Investigations have questioned some of Rhee's accomplishments in increasing test scores in D.C. schools" especially since DC Schools has since conducted an investigation, especially since the office of the State Superintendent of Education recommended that the scores of many schools be investigated [13]. I would absolutely disagree that this section conveys the controversy in 'extreme detail'. This is a short summary of a major scandal that compromised Rhee's public image as an effective education reformer. Rhee still boasts about the "gains" she made at DC Schools, even though many of these gains appear to be the fraudulent by-product of the skewed incentive system she put in place. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I would have to disagree, the section has many unsourced paragraphs and is subject to WP:BURDEN and as stated by the original poster, it does appear to have WP:UNDUE weight, and can be more effectively summarized while maintaining WP:NPOV, and not be used as an attack against the subject and thus making the article a WP:COATRACK BLP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and attach tags to all the statements you feel need sourcing. Greg Comlish (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed tags aren't for use on negative material in a WP:BLP article. Content is either verified or removed. So I removed it. 68.55.4.152 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Fishicus and anonymous editors have removed the entire controversy over test scores. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michelle_Rhee&diff=537669313&oldid=537512866

This is not WP:COPYVIO, because they summarize and paraphrase the articles.

It is also not a WP:BLP violation, because the charges are well-sourced to many WP:RS, including USA Today and the Washington Post. WP:BLP does not require us to remove "negative material" or properly sourced criticism. It only requires us to remove unsourced material.

Finally, this is a massive deletion and should have been discussed first in Talk. This violates WP:PRESERVE and WP:CONSENSUS.

I'm reverting these changes. If people want to delete them, they should discuss it first in talk and get consensus. --Nbauman (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I just saw the copyvio template which is listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#:Michelle_Rhee

I don't see any evidence that this is a copyright violation. It certainly isn't plagarized because it's attributed. This notice was posted on 10 February 2013 and no one has given supporting evidence since that time.

If you want to put a copyvio notice in this section, please cite the exact sentences that are copied. --Nbauman (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that the majority of this section is sited by one reliable source, are there additional sources that are not reprintings of the Washington Post source, that give significant coverage of the accusation which is given to this section?

Given the size of the section, I see it as having undue weight in the article. Perhaps it can be better summarized to one or two paragraphs.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this section can and should be condensed and will work towards doing so unless someone can make a clear objection as to why not. Fraulein451 (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

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)

I don't understand why this is a copyright problem.

I'd like to see an example of the version that you consider copyright violation. As I said above,

I don't see any evidence that this is a copyright violation. It certainly isn't plagiarized because it's attributed. This notice was posted on 10 February 2013 and no one has given supporting evidence since that time.

If you want to put a copyvio notice in this section, please cite the exact sentences that are copied.

Nobody responded.

Now you're giving the example of the Lord quote. Lord made the point that because principals are being fired on the basis of these tests, it's important that they should be accurate. This is an argument that has come up repeatedly in other high-stakes teacher testing debates, for example in New York City, and those repeated arguments gives it WP:WEIGHT. You could have edited it, but you eliminated that point completely. The people who are being fired are complaining that the tests are inaccurate. I think that's a legitimate WP:NPOV. It's only fair to give them a chance to defend themselves in a public debate. I think they deserve to defend themselves in their own words.

As you can see from my user page, I've been writing for publication for years, I paraphrase (and quote) text from scientific publications and newspapers all the time. I've had editors and lawyers review my work, and nobody has ever accused me of copyright violation.

I read Close paraphrasing, but that's just an essay, not a guideline. Even so, I don't understand how the original text violates the essay:

Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph.

That's what the Lord quote does.

As I wrote above, this is a controversial WP:BLP. It's important to follow WP:RSs closely, and too much rephrasing is likely to result in inaccurate summaries of the WP:RS. When we paraphrase, Rhee's defenders say that it's not accurate and delete it. When we quote directly they say that it's a copyright violation and delete it. --Nbauman (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm sorry that nobody responded to you above and that I didn't see your note sooner. It's helpful to demonstrate issues so that they aren't repeated.

Wikipedia's copyright policies may differ considerably from the policies that you're familiar with elsewhere and perhaps that is in part because our material is licensed for reuse by anyone, anywhere in the world, even commercially. Because purpose of use is one of the factors of fair use, the standards to which you ordinarily adhere may not apply here. Our non-free content policy and guideline are deliberately tighter than fair use law, and all content must conform to those and to WP:C. While Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is an essay, it is a support document for policy materials long in place: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.)"; "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks,

, or a similar method."

It may be acceptable in some cases to to indirectly quote a small amount of text (Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Avoiding plagiarism gives an example of acceptable indirect quotation), but I think there is some confusion about the attribution issue. This article did not say:

Jack Gillum and Marisol Bello indicate that Lord said....

It simply copied the quote and their apparatus. But this was by no means the extent of copy-pasting and certainly not the best example of the probem. I offered it just because it was a clear example that shows that whoever put it there copied it from the source without altering it in any way.

It's been a while, but for a more clear example of an issue in earlier content:

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 have bolded the portion that duplicates the source exactly. The only change here is the elimination of the leading words of the first sentence and the alteration of a dash to a comma. The rest is copied verbatim. There is no reason for such content to be closely paraphrased, when it can be quoted (if necessary) or (as policy dictates) put into our own words. Moreover, it obviously does not conform to the passage you quote above. There is no attribution of this text to Gillum and Bello. It's just copied.

There is often a tension between meeting WP:C, WP:V and WP:NPOV, but it is achievable through a balance of proper paraphrase and judicious quotation. It isn't always easy, but it's worthwhile.

(In terms of plagiarism, please note that by Wikipedia's definition the citation is not enough. As Wikipedia:Plagiarism notes, copied & closely paraphrased content must be explicitly acknowledged. But plagiarism isn't my main concern - as I said, I came here as an uninvolved administrator to resolve a copyright complaint listed at the copyright problems noticeboard.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Test Errasures

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)

Rolled back the roll back. The re-added content gives undue weight to a single source and could be more neutrally and more briefly worded. Please do not re-added it would receiving consensus, and lets work on more brief and neutral working together.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me guess, you haven't even reviewed the new version, which doesn't match the sources, correct? aprock (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:AVOIDYOU.

I read what had been re-added, and reverted after reading the weight given to a particular single source. Lets see if we can summarize what that source can verify to at most two neutrally worded sentences, and not give it the paragraphs of content that had been re-added.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're read it [14], then you realize that the content doesn't match the sources, correct? aprock (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate I have contacted the Admin/Editor whom deleted the content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading the source it does match with what is presented in the source.

Changes were made today, that very closely match the wording of source, and as such, due to copyright concerns, as stated in other sections above, I have reverted the changes. Let us see if we can get what the source says, while briefly summarizing it in our own words in a neutral way that is neither positive or negative of the subject of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:57, 18 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)

The reversion of the reversion violates WP:BRD, and can be seen as edit warring, and attempting to own the section. Please stop. Please, again, avoid you.

I will not engage in a edit conflict with the above editor, and will report accordingly. Please stop editing this section, and let us reach a consensus as to the wording of this second paragraph.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:34, 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)

I agree with aprock. I just checked this article in order to get some background on the cheating accusations, and I see that the section has been drastically cut, with most of the facts, and the links, that support the cheating charges removed, and replaced with defenses of Rhee. The people who made these charges have not retracted them, and many of the strongest specific charges have not been disproven. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michelle_Rhee&oldid=526948229#Test_erasures https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michelle_Rhee&oldid=652827773#Test_erasures https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michelle_Rhee&diff=629949244&oldid=629924503 There are many WP:RSs that repeated the USA Today stories, and many WP:RSs who still say the charges are valid, which gives it WP:WEIGHT. If Rhee's test results were the result of cheating, as Ravitch said, then it is unsurprising that it received a lot of coverage. --Nbauman (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG:

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.

Additionally, there is at least one other editor, Fraulein451, who disagree with the view that content should be there. Just because something is verified doesn't mean it should be given weight. Also see WP:SUMMARIZE, neutrally worded and concise, please. The content removed went into a great amount of detail, which could have easily been summarized. While I disagree that the section should be removed all together, as was done here, it shouldn't have as much weight as Aprock or NBauman are supporting IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Frontline documentary

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)

Titles

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)

Are there reliable source(s) to verify this title exist?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Typo

"In 2008, 28% of African Americans supported Rhee, down from 50% in 2008." From the context, maybe the second "2008" should be 2010?

 Done

Thanks for catching the typo.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701200501/http://www.studentsfirst.org/pages/about-michelle-rhee to http://www.studentsfirst.org/pages/about-michelle-rhee
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221104559/http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/02/10/michelle-rhee-on-vouchers-social-promotion-and-putting-kids-first/ to http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/02/10/michelle-rhee-on-vouchers-social-promotion-and-putting-kids-first/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720125627/http://www.teach-now.org/aboutboard.cfm to http://www.teach-now.org/aboutboard.cfm

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) 14:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant citations galore

This article has many issues, but the major one that jumped out at me is the lack of clarity and relevance in the citations, with many of them just templates that either link excessively to one article or link to a news page on stories about Rhee but never in direct reference to the claim it's been added to. A list of instances follows.

• The template < ref name="NYTimes"/> has been used 4 times, which links to New York Times articles on Michelle Rhee but not a specific article about the claims made.
• The template < ref name="Washingtonian 2007"/> has been used 7 times, which links to a long Washingtonian article with a lot of detailing about Rhee's personal life and the context around her employment. Excessively used throughout the article.

That's all I had time to examine, but this entire article looks like it needs a good bit of weed killer and window shine. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)