User talk:TheMissingMuse

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jo Boaler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NSF. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFUSD Boaler

Hello, thank you for your comments on the SFUSD section of the Boaler talk page. Sorry, I think you are trying to help, but I am having trouble understanding the point you are trying to make. Since that section of the talk page is already very long, I thought maybe we could have a discussion here where I could attempt to get a better understanding of what you are trying to say before I go back to the article talk page there, instead of us having a lot of confused back-and-forth discussion there first.

It would help me if you could instead say something more specific about what concerns you have about the secondary sources I listed, since sources like the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner are high quality secondary news sources, and the Chronicle of Higher Education and Hechinger Report are very highly-regarded education-specific secondary news sources. Kappan is a long-standing education publisher and the Kappan article is a high quality peer reviewed research article. The Kappan article was co-authored by the SFUSD school district superintendent (Richard Carranza, the one in charge of making this decision about this 2014-2024 curriculum update), plus a Stanford faculty member who directs a partnership program between SFUSD policy development and the Stanford Education Department. The San Francisco Examiner article was also written by Carranza. Moreover, the literature review I discussed in the peer-reviewed "Stanford Study" article I mentioned counts as a tertiary source for some of these secondary sources.

So if you could describe what your concerns are about these sources, that would be helpful. In fact, I think this sort of discussion would be easier to have verbally, but WP does not have a forum for that. Thanks very much! Scalymath (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think my major concern is that the details of the controversy are not well documented in public secondary sources. The best source is Lee's Chronicle of Higher Education piece, but after that there is a steep drop off in source quality. That said, I've seen that sourcing quality has generally fallen off a cliff at wikipedia, but I do think for a WP:BLP you want generally the best sources.

I suspect it will be easier to find good sourcing for Boaler advocating for removing Algebra from middle school than it will be to pin her directly to the SFUSD fiacso. TheMissingMuse (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is a helpful clarification. Given that Stephanie Lee is an award-winning investigative journalist (and for example as a STEM person I was familiar with her work years before her Boaler article), I can understand how other sources might seem to pale in quality compared to an approximately 10K-word biographical piece of investigative journalism by Stephanie Lee.

But I think the other secondary sources I mentioned in the condensed tab are still high quality sources for the topics for which they are used, and that they meet Wikipedia verifiability standards for BLP. Scalymath (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]