Talk:National Education Association

message: I added the  template. It is still being finalised - and comments/contributions are welcome either at the template page, or at WikiProject Organized Labour.--Bookandcoffee 18:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the infobox but I am not sure if I like what it does to the layout of the page? Robbie dee 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you like you can add  just before the History section to force it to start after the infobox. Does that help?--Bookandcoffee 04:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Union

message: Reports of increased NEA-AFT cooperation as well as potential NEA affiliation with the AFL-CIO would represent significant developments in the US labor movement, and have been posted here with relevant sourcing to Wikipedia and to news reports. Please do not delete these without explanation. Robbie dee 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to add a bit more info around this subject and flesh it out a bit. I did not intentionally remove anything you wrote, but I did make quite a few substantial edits to this page. I may have inadvertently removed something, but I doubt it. If I did, please accept my apology. (Neaeditor 19:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NEA,AFT and the AFL-CIO

message: The link to the "NEA Accountability Project" does seem topical (although the other Wall St. Journal article linked by the anonymous user was not - it made no mention of the NEA at all). However it would help to have some background on the Landmark Legal Foundation as well - there is no wikipedia article about them currently. Robbie dee 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above referenced Wall Street Journal article discusses the AFL-CIO's politics. As NEA chapters will apparently be free to align themselves with the AFL-CIO this is indeed relevent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.183.7 (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the WSJ article is relevant. But then this should be discussed in the article itself, and specific links to specific pages and/or articles on the NEA Accountability Project Web site linked to. A generic link to the NEA Accountability Project is not appropriate. (Also, don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~.)- Tim1965 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Landmark Legal Foundation

message: The reference section on this article badly needs attention. Its largely worthless as it stands. - Freechild 00:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The references which do exist would be better as inline citations to footnotes, with a references section added. Nearly all of these inline references at the moment (June 2007) are publications, not just Web links. They should be adjusted to be real footnotes, not links. Links go bad. - Tim1965 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit it: I'm a rookie Wikipedia editor, and I had a hard time deciding what are the best or most appropriate ways to provide the requisite additional information -- references, citations, in-line citations, etc. I reviewed some of the info in the Help section on this, but it's labor intensive to wade through everything. I took a stab at it, but I probably still need help in this area. (Neaeditor 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Why are there several critical sites linked? This article reads as if there is nothing good about the NEA. protohiro 03:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll hazard a guess: The article was written by an anti-NEA author. It clearly needs work (like many labor-related articles). - Tim1965 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One sided links

message: Some of the links in the External Links section are now gone. According to [[Wikipedia:External links|Wiki's external links policy], links which contain "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" should not be included. Additionally, article which "are only indirectly related to the article's subject" or "on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." For example, the link to the Schlafly article might have been appropriate if it contained factual information form a reliable or verifiable source and was used to footnote something in the article. In such a case, it should be fully cited in the references section and used as an inline citation to footnote a claim. Otherwise, it should not be included in external links. "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." "[But] it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic..." "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." There are a hundred thousand articles about the NEA online; why was this particular one included? I see no justification for that. (Instead, I see plenty of reason to challenge the inclusion of the link, given that Schlafly is NPOV and her articles almost never include factual statements but rather statements of opinion.) Similar arguments could be made against all the links I removed. The NEA Accountability Project site remains, because it arguably contains "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability..." I think the Project site is unreliable, and is an "aggregated results" page (a Wiki no-no). But it remains, because this is still arguable, I think. - Tim1965 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Antonucci website is a longstanding and widely-read information source regarding the NEA, and quite properly belongs in any article on it. 66.166.183.7 12:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Antonucci is kind of like a watch dog for teachers' unions. He's critical of NEA, AFT and many others; he's very knowledgeable about NEA and sheds a lot of light on the organization's activities. He absolutely belongs in this list. (Neaeditor 12:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I added this entire section, hoping to provided a brief, concise and neutral account of what NEA's business is and has been, historically speaking. (Neaeditor 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mission

message: With this section I hope to provide a sense that NEA is a democratic organization that derives its policies and leadership from the members themselves, who elect their own representatives and leaders and vote on NEA's policies/positions. (Neaeditor 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure and Governance

message: As I mention elsewhere on this page, I moved all of the comments that were formerly under "politics" to this section. Those comments on NEA's politics seemed too one-sided and too critical for a section that ought to be more neutral. I tried not to remove or delete any of the criticisms -- I just moved them and grouped them under what seemed to be the logical categories based on what the various critical remarks throughout the page. However, I did make quite a few additions to the page and made a lot of edits. Something might have been inadvertently deleted, though I doubt it. (Neaeditor 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "although it is often categorized as a labor union with strong leftist and liberal leanings, particularly by critics.[2]" Should read, "...especially by critics." Distinguish particulate-ness from especial-ness. This critic categorizes the NEA as critical of wholesome education. Indeed, the NEA has brought the situation of education to a critically dangerous ideology. Supporting so-called same-sex marriage is anything but wholesome or beneficial to the education of our nation's children. The NEA is now officially pro-immorality, pro-licentiousness, pro-death. Jesus's work now effects life in believers. That which is opposite effects death. Viva life. Viva Jesus. Down with death and destruction emanating from the promotion of homosexuality. Down with the NEA. 66.210.33.142 (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks Thelma for the oppurtunity to discuss the article. I am a little puzzled by your description of a single edit-revert as an "endless edit war," but it is not very important, so I'll skip that. With respect to the edits, the crux of the dispute-if it can be called that-is besides being inaccurate, more importantly, the assertations made by the edit were, vague generalizations that were not verifiable with any reliable third-party sources. That being said,I see no reason a brief statement in the lede cannot be present to offer a little introduction to the criticsm section. Cheerio! HoundofBaskersville (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hound, you are correct that I exaggerated when I said, "endless edit war," and I apologise. You do seem to return every few months to remove the word "conservative" from this same paragraph (Feb. 2011, Oct. 2010). The fact that it repreatedly returns, and that you repeatedly return to remove it, suggests to me that maybe there should be a third way. That's all.--Thelema12 (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No apology necessary. The sporadic edits of mine (like this!) you refer to are a result of a full-time job, other interests, and my own self-admitted laziness. As to the "conservative" part, if you read my previous post, I pointed out the reason for my edit was that the assertation was not in accordance with WP:RS. I could put up and put a footnote of every criticism of the NEA by conservatives, libertarians, independents, moderates liberals, etc. (there's that laziness part again), but that would probably be too long and inappropriate for the lede. If the "third way" you speak of is putting items in sections, "Be Bold"-as they say. But the first way, I think, should always be to adhere to WP:V and WP:RS. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Recent edits and additions by "Neaeditor" and others threaten to turn this article into a house organ for the union. Some semblance of NPOV needs be maintained if this Wikipedia article is to remain credible! ChulaOne 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before my additions, it was incredibly one-sided and biased against NEA. And I didn't delete any of it. I added facts about the organization; which of those facts are not credible? If and when you find them, make edits. (Neaeditor 12:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: confining controversy about the NEA to a section far, far down the page is unhelpful and departs rather too drastically from previous editions of this article. ChulaOne 00:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: seems consistent to how criticism is presented on other wikipedia pages Neaeditor (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Your assertion that you didn't delete any criticism Neaeditor is bogus. The entire section has gone from well-sourced important criticsm to redundant, shallow claims which I can only assume will be used as evidence of "unsourced allegations" to whitewash even more of them. If you wish to add information or to post reactions to criticism, fine. Otherwise stop blanket deletions and edits of important material.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have reorganized the criticism, grouping like things together, but I never deleted any of it.Neaeditor (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: About the "Affiliation" line in the Infobox... as I understand it, this page has been grouped under the "organized labor portal," and the Infobox here is intended to provide information about NEA within the context of other organized labor groups. "Affiliation" refers to our relationships with other organized labor groups -- we don't have any formal ones; for example, we are not affiliated with the AFL-CIO. We are an independent labor group. There is no question NEA is a left-leaning organization with close ties to the Democratic Party, so you could say we are affiliated with them; but the Infobox is not the place for this thought. There is a whole section on political activities where it would be better placed. Neaeditor (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview of article

message: I changed the "affiliation" label back to "independent" (it had been set to "democratic" by Steve1240). NEA supports political candidates who share similar views on public education. Most often, they are Democrats, but they are not exclusively Democrats. NEA also support Republicans -- Mike Simpson, Richard Lugar, Olympia Snowe, Jim Gerlach, John M. McHugh and Bernard Sanders were all supported by NEA. Neaeditor 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Neaeditor, but for a different reason! The affiliation field is actually used for union affiliations. The NEA is independent, but it is independent as opposed to being an affiliated with the AFL-CIO, or Change to Win Federation. See Template talk:Infobox Union for details. Cheers, --Bookandcoffee 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the Nea has put much effort into distancing themselves as a Union. They're fundamentally a political institution with the hope of rallying and lobbying to get political change. Shouldn’t affiliation be a refection of their primary political purpose? The Nea overwhelmingly contributes to Democrats and lobbies for Democratic ideals... which makes them de facto Democratic party affiliates. And now in mist of the presidential election, they’re fully backing the Democratic Obama. It doesn’t lessen affiliation to occasionally cross partisan lines, just as Democratic presidents or congressman on occasion vote for a Republican bill, such small bipartisanship doesn’t make them any less of an Democrat affiliate. So even if a very small percentage of the Nea recommendations were for Republicans, it doesn’t change the fact that they’re primary ideals, choices, and actions are of a socialist nature and fundamentally Democratic. If you read where the Nea stands on political issues and understand the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, there's no way the Nea could be considered anything other than far left Democratic. The reason why they don’t openly declare such is because it’s likely that about half their teachers are going to be Republican, which would threaten their dues. Jadon (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Affiliation

message: Deleted the hopelessly biased comment about the NEA's opposition to homeschooling. Homeschooling is not something that has necessarily been proven to be 'better' than public or other institutional education, it is simply different. I hope no one minds this. Lequis (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeschooling / other edits 

message: Do university professors have to join unions? I know that elementary and secondary teaching is virtually a closed shop, but is that so with those who teach at colleges, even private ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.207 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question. Most professors belong to the AAUP or equivalent. The money all ends up in the same hands.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends upon what state you work in -- both for university professors and for elementary and secondary teachers. In right-to-work states, state law prohibits compulsory membership. In other states, there is "agency fee" -- which stipulates that when union membership among elementary and secondary teachers in a given school district hits a certain threshold (say 85%), then the law allows the union to garnish wages from the remaining 15%. The rationale is that since the union is negotiating pay and benefits that apply to all teachers, regardless of whether or not they are members, the 10% shouldn't be allowed to free-load off the others. At the university level, this concept of agency fee also applies in some states, but it may work slightly different than in elementary and secondary schools. Neaeditor (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFT and NEA, colleges 

message: http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2232488/teacher-slams-linux —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.154.93 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft lobbying? 

message: Seems like there should be a section on The Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM). From their site: "The Gateway (formerly known as GEM) was developed with funds from the U.S. Department of Education to provide teachers with learning resources created by over 750 publicly funded organizations. Oversight of the development of both the underlying GEM technologies and the Gateway website was provided by the US Department of Education with the guidance from the contributing member population in the way of an advisory board. In 2005 the Gateway’s U.S. Dept. of Ed. funding ceased and the National Education Association stepped in to preserve this national education asset." http://www.thegateway.org/about/gemingeneral/about-gem
"GEM allows you to quickly and easily search for educational resources, such as lesson plans and curriculum units. GEM draws from some of the country's best museums, universities, and government programs, including NASA, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, the National Science Foundation, and the Exploratorium in San Francisco." http://www.learningcommons.org/educators/library/gem.php
I actually sort of think GEM/The Gateway should have its own page and then this page could summarize it more briefly and link to the main page. Thoughts? Brianwc (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GEM now "The Gateway to 21st Century Skills" 

message: Wiki rules clearly allow use of NEA published items when dealing w NEA. Please do not defy the rules here.  See WP:SPS "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."  Rjensen (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I'm in total agreement. The problem is that this material  is quite clearly "unduly self-serving." It's promotional. It makes exceptional claims about the NEA's alleged involvement in civil rights issues, etc., and as such requires secondary sourcing for verification. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: the one cited source in the section  doesn't immediately appear to verify any of the content in the timeline in question. It may have at one time verified the content about same-sex rights, as that's where the citation is placed. So our problem isn't even that we only have a self-published source for all of this content about the NEA's apparently extraordinary record of achievement...it's that we have no sources at all. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourcing is an issue to solve, not an invite to erase.  I do not see "exceptional claims". It's a very old, large, powerful and politically active group. The proper procedue is to request citations. Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:VERIFIABILITY, unsourced material may be removed at any time. As you can see from my edit history on this article, I've removed some unsourced material, added some citation needed tags, and added quite a few secondary sources. When I discovered the article, over 80% of the articles citations were to the NEA's own website. There are many reliable scholarly sources out there covering the NEA, and there's no reason so much of the article should be self-sourced. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: yes I quite agree.  When an interesting event is mentioned it should invite the editors to find a source. Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  self published sources are OK here 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on National Education Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3384186.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070714044312/http://www.nea.org/topics/truth.html to http://www.nea.org/topics/truth.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on National Education Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061219224157/http://www.crisismagazine.com/february2005/desmond.htm to http://www.crisismagazine.com/february2005/desmond.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927065040/http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr_648.php to http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr_648.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Education Association. 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/20121202080717/http://www.nea.org/grants/33354.htm to http://www.nea.org/grants/33354.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: There's a section on the current page about a supposed subsidiary of NEA called "KEA"; the section claims it stands for "Kids Education Association" and has a $163 million budget. The section has no supporting documentation though, and it is riddled with grammatical and spelling mistakes. Finally, no mention of this organization can be found anywhere else online. Perhaps it's a prank of some kind? I'm new to Wikipedia or I'd have deleted it myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.255.235 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "KEA" section a prank? 

message: — Assignment last updated by SRP1828 (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics