Talk:Lily Eskelsen García

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Organized Labour Low‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

United States: Hispanic and Latino / Utah Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Hispanic and Latino Americans portal This article is supported by the Hispanic and Latino Americans task force.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2020)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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) 08:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]