There's been a bit of an edit war gong on today between User:68.113.25.188 and User:ElKevbo regarding the insertion of the following into the Criticisms section:
In January 2012, an online petition began circulating demanding Duncan's removal from office and substantial changes to the Obama administration's education policy: http://dumpduncan.org.[16]
It seems sourced, although the inclusion of an external link in the article body is inappropriate. I'm bringing the issue here for these two editors (and anyone else interested) to discuss, in order to gain consensus. Yunshui 雲水 15:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- (I already started a section above this so I don't know why we need another one...)
- The cited source is entirely insufficient to clear the bar for including (negative) information in a BLP. We need something much, much better than a single blog to draw attention to this petition in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's not clear that an online petition is sufficiently important to merit inclusion in the article. However, the source (LA Progressive) seems sufficiently solid to me -- it's essentially an online newspaper, not a blog. Let's leave the item about the petition here while investigating whether it's been noticed by anybody else. I've removed the advertisement for the petition, though. --Orlady (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- No. We don't allow this kind of material to remain in a BLP "while investigating whether it's been noticed by anybody else." That's a gross misunderstanding of our policy that is very clear on this issue. On that basis, I am again removing the material. If this continues, I will escalate this discussion to a more visible venue such as ANI. ElKevbo (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- (e/c) After a second reading, I'm not sure about LA Progressive as a source for this. The "article" is essentially just a link to the petition and a copy of its content; it's not substantially better than linking directly to the petition itself. I can't find any other info on the petition that isn't sourced to blogs or facebook. Yunshui 雲水 15:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- That has been my evaluation, too. I'm not necessarily opposed to including this information in the article but we'd need much better sourcing to do so. ElKevbo (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
After a bit of consideration, I have blocked the IP for edit warring over content that fails BLP. ElKevbo's reverts fall under a 3RR exemption, and he has been making a good-faith effort to engage editors in discussion about this dispute, so no block is necessary there. In order for this content to be included in the article, it needs to cite a reliable source. --Chris (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've now semi-protected the article, as a new IP has picked up where the last one left off. --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks so much! ElKevbo (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/arne-duncan-common-core-comment-99987.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.94.192 (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)