Talk:Alison Collins

Alison Collins sues district, colleagues over response to her tweets

Add recent lawsuit in article https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/03/31/update-ousted-san-francisco-school-board-vp-allison-collins-files-lawsuit/ -- Eatcha 05:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Eatcha: applauding your sincere efforts in improving the Wikipedia article... I encourage you and others to contribute, whether they be anonymous or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:c001:4a40:a4bd:bfbd:1c50:9ebf (talk • contribs)

NPOV

We should be careful to maintain a neutral point of view on this article, as several edits have attempted to push a certain conclusion about Collins' recent controversy instead of letting the sources speak for themselves. natemup (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @2601:645:c001:4a40:a4bd:bfbd:1c50:9ebf:. Please stop WP:EDITWARRING. If you have questions about other editors' edits, it's much more productive to discuss it in the talk page than in the edit summaries. — BriefEdits (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

2601:645:c001:4a40:a4bd:bfbd:1c50:9ebf (talk · contribs): Seconding the above. I made numerous edits (including fixing typos) and they were all reverted. Moreover, one's personal opinion about the nature of Collins' tweets I should not color the nature of this article. It has already been stated and cited that many people called the tweets racist, but there have been other perspectives as well. Calling the tweets racist and Collins unapologetic is POV 101. And the title of that section should almost certainly be "Controversy", as is seen on similar Wikipedia articles. Let the reader make their own conclusion about the facts of the matter. natemup (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

2601:645:C001:4A40:5992:7D2B:8961:A48D (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC) here, to address BriefEdits and others regarding using NPOV. I've taken great care in choosing the right words for Biographies of living persons that only take a neutral point of view when adding to the Alison Collins article. The addition I made to Alison Collins article today summarizes the article and also uses neutral information taken from several news sources already cited in the article. I created value for the reader of the article by making the lead section readable enough so that the reader can understand the "nutshell" of the article by reading the lead section alone.

 I have reviewed what Wikipedia instructs editors specifically from these two wiki pages
   http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
   http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section

I find the claim BriefEdits and Scribe252 are making dubious regarding NPOV because the information is cited in great detail from several news sources already listed in the references section of the article. Sincerely, 2601:645:C001:4A40:5992:7D2B:8961:A48D (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@2601:645:C001:4A40:5992:7D2B:8961:A48D: Leads are supposed to be concise summaries. Your edits far exceed the recommended MOS:LEADLENGTH. Furthermore, your edits listing her coverage isn't neutral at all, focusing only on criticism and minute details regarding to her actions (see WP:EXCESSDETAIL and WP:CRIT) and is therefore lacking in WP:NPOV. — BriefEdits (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC) here replying BriefEdits's last comment. You are correct. Leads are supposed to be concise summaries, of which the edits I made were much more concise than what the lead was previously. I maintain, the edits I made to the lead do not exceed the recommended length. They are in total two paragraphs. As for the accusation that the addition I made was in some way non neutral point of view, that accusation is highly dubious, because the added content is cited extensively with a significant variety of sources and accurately represents a rehash of what has already been written in the rest of the article. As I pointed a couple of days ago on your talk page profile, I used the word 'paradoxically' to describe a very unethical tactic you have used time and again is undoing someone else's honest and fair work that is clearly neutral, accusing the other editor of being nonneutral, and and adding your own content and/or removing content that changes the article to become very nonneutral. The readers are owed a neutral point of view. Please be sincere in your approach. Regards,2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead sections as Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends

To BriefEdits and Scribe252:

I, 2601:645:C001:4A40:5992:7D2B:8961:A48D (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC), made significant edits to the lead section. I made sure when doing so, I followed http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section as a guide.

As the lead section is meant to provide the reader both an introduction of the article and summary of its most important points, as Wikipedia's Manual of Style says:

"The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents"

and

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

and

"This page in a nutshell: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."

Hope my explanation helps the understanding why I made the edits to the lead section today.

Regards, 2601:645:C001:4A40:5992:7D2B:8961:A48D (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@2601:645:C001:4A40:5992:7D2B:8961:A48D: You just listed words from the style article without citing any of the changes that you've made. Furthermore, the style guide calls for "paragraphs", not lists. Additionally, your edits are way longer than the recommended MOS:LEADLENGTH. — BriefEdits (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The list is part of the paragraph. The total number of paragraphs equal two. All the added content to the lead is very much well cited. Regards, 2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

El C

Editors like El C with privileges to lock other users from editing the article for 60 days is in fact a form of violating NPOV and BLP. I implore editors with the same or greater privileges than El C to consider overriding El C for a dubious accusation of editorializing. El C's actions deprives the readers and other editors the value of Wikipedia of being a resource of the objective and accurate information. Look more carefully into El C's actions and override them. The readers and editors at large deserve better when learning and improving the information regarding the topic. The consequence of not doing so serves to obfuscate the continuing harm Alison Collins various news sources say is doing to her constituents, including the K-12 students and parents, San Francisco taxpayers, school employees. Allow the Wikipedia community of editors and readers to arrive at a more nuanced description of this topic, by removing a lock to edit, to protect those who are most affected, her constituents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Sincerely, 2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

IP, I'm not sure how much traction you'll get with that, erm, call to action, here on the article talk page (or in general, as stated). But I will note that this was one protection action among 30 or so that I dealt with at RfPP in the last few hours (diff). El_C 05:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

El C, I implore to reconsider the action you made as the action creates much more harm than help. Continue to allow as large a community of editors and readers to form a dialogue of what belongs to truly describe the topic, instead of locking out an update of description for 60 days. Not only do the City of San Francisco constituents deserve outlet for current objective information on Wikipedia, but those who want to protect US civil liberties. The various news sources make things crystal clear regard Collins's transgressions - its harm by not identifying them is beyond measure- not identifying harmful speech, which various news sources have described here may compound exponentially misunderstandings among more ordinary citizens and threaten those most vulnerable to become victims of hate speech and hate crimes, far beyond the borders of the city of San Francisco. So I ask again, please find another way other than locking out editors for 60 days to demonstrate a point on how to best edit a Wikipedia article correctly. Regards, 2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

IP, we don't Right great wrongs on Wikipedia. Turning the lead paragraph into a bullet-point Criticism section violates WP:BLP (and the Manual of Style), in my view. Again, that is my assessment as an uninvolved admin. And again, you may bring the matter to WP:BLPN for further review, if you wish. Also, any other uninvolved admin should feel free to take any action they see fit here, including by lifting my protection outright. I need not be consulted or even notified about it. El_C 05:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

IP, you don't even seem to know how to WP:INDENT your comments (I've been doing that for you here throughout), so I don't really have that much confidence about how well informed you are of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In any case, again again, seeking a wider review by way of WP:BLPN is an option that is available to you. There are also other dispute resolution requests, like 3rd opinion or a Request for comment, that you may avail yourself of. These may help to bring outside input to this matter by interested editors. About the protection: as mentioned, if you're able to convince another admin to undertake a different course of action (of any kind), that's fine. As I already noted, for my part, I waive any objections. El_C 06:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)El C, a paragraph by definition does not cease to be a paragraph if it contains a list. Thus the paragraph which contains the list, is a paragraph. What makes the paragraph connected with the sentence above the list and below is they all have the same topic and scope. If you look the entirety of the lead, there only exists two paragraphs. So I ask again, reconsider the reasons I am writing this in great detail and with great belief. BriefEdits is fooling you. Allow the article to be unlocked. The Wikipedia community will be grateful for your correction. Btw be wary of BriefEdits claims. For one thing my IP has been static and never changing when I make edits. Regards, 2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

El C, in addition, the claims BriefEdits makes that (1) "it's a criticism not a lead" is dubious. The information has been fully supported in the rest of the article. It's only written in nutshell form for the benefit of the reader in the lead paragraph. (2) It's not maligning BLP if the description is supported in an unbiased way. The description are very much supported in an unbiased way with a great number of cited news sources. Thus I suggest you take a closer look at BriefEdits claims. You'll find after looking more carefully that they're very dubious and do not have merit. -2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting those with admin rights or just El Cid himself to take a closer look at this discussion to consider reversal of El Cid's action of locking the article for 60 days. -2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

IP, you don't even seem to know how to WP:INDENT your comments (I've been doing that for you here throughout), so I don't really have that much confidence about how well informed you are of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In any case, again again, seeking a wider review by way of WP:BLPN is an option that is available to you. There are also other dispute resolution requests, like 3rd opinion or a Request for comment, that you may avail yourself of. These may help to bring outside input to this matter by interested editors.

About the protection: as mentioned, if you're able to convince another admin to undertake a different course of action (of any kind), that's fine. As I already noted, for my part, I waive any objections. But I think you don't realize this: not a lot of admins are going to see your request, here, on this article talk page. For whatever that's worth. El_C 06:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

El C I have no idea what you're trying to say with your last reply. I'm trying to implore you to reverse the lock. It is what the RFP page instructs, to first talk it out on the article's talk page with the person who locked it. Will you at least try to consider what I've mentioned just a little bit? Regards, 2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Look, IP, you've reached a point where a certain level of competence is required. That means doing the leg work of clicking the links and generally being responsive in a substantive way. I think you're falling short of that, but I'm happy to let another admin take it upon themselves to review my review, and act as they see fit. I'm not really interested in any more back and forth. I'm finding it a bit of a time sink, so I'm choosing to disengage, for now. P.S. Still had to indent your comment for you (4th time). El_C 16:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Nothing about "renaming of 44 schools" in the rest of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

During her tenure, she came into national attention for her role in the attempted renaming of 44 schools in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) which allegedly honor individuals with discriminatory pasts is extremely problematic anyway. There's nothing in the AP article about her alleged role, it simply says the school board faced national criticism for a plan to rename 44 of its schools. Alison Collins is not the school board, she's one of seven members. It's unacceptable to transfer criticism of the board as a whole onto Alison Collins. FDW777 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's [1] another article about that, she's not mentioned there either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: Yeah, I had questions about the WP:GNG of the subject because most coverage is relation to her involvement in the board (which raises question of (WP:INHERITORG) and the article was created immediately after controversy arose form a series from tweets (which raises questions of WP:BLP1E) but I suppose she passes WP:POLITICIAN. I guess I overcompensated to sort of justify her own article by including a little of everything in the lead while trying to balance my own reservations about how to include the content. — BriefEdits (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Hey, I'm the one who originally wrote the lengthier lead, which included information about the renaming and school reopenings. I concurrently edit on San Francisco Board of Education so sometimes my edits get blurred between the two, and I haven't gotten around to writing that part yet. But I've also been stuck on how to phrase her involvement without attributing too much credit or sounding redundant from the org's article. — BriefEdits (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing for Educator?

In the lead, the subject is listed as an educator, with the sourcing coming from an endorsement page from the editorial board. Are there other sources that back this claim up? Where did she teach? Past life sourcing before School Board appears to be thin. PacificDepths (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• @PacificDepths: The inline citation from the lead is from SF Public Press and states Alison Collins, a former educator of 20 years who writes an education blog, answered last. Most of the coverage I found are from around the time of the election to now but feel free to look for stuff too. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Still incumbent?

I'm assuming the infobox might need to be updated, but as I'm not sure if the vote results in an instant removal or not I'm hestitant to add an end date. FDW777 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• @FDW777: The San Francisco Chronicle says it's probably going to be until some time next month. — BriefEdits (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

OK that seems to be contradicted by the current lead. FDW777 (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)