Talk:Janet Protasiewicz

Removal of sourced content

User:The ed17 has been edit warring to remove sourced content. The 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election was notable because the candidates spent record amounts, the most in US history in fact. The disputed content is: "Protasiewicz raising five times more that her opponent, and three donors—George Soros, J. B. Pritzker, and Stacy and Lynn Schusterman—each pledging $1 million to Protasiewicz via the Democratic Party". This is an encyclopedic fact, and it contributed to a US record. Just because Soros--or Fred Flintstone or whoever--are mentioned doesn't make it less of a fact, or less encyclopedic. The input of other would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You've been around long enough, and have made more than enough edits, to know what the definition of what edit warring is. Reverting a controversial edit is not edit warring.

You should also know that invoking Soros' name in this way is a dog whistle that intentionally caters to conspiracy theorists. You would know this because I told you that five months ago after you invoked that particular dog whistle in this comment.

Unless there's a specific reason to name these three donors, I can't see why we'd include specific mentions of them in this article. We could include information about the total fundraising, borrowing existing language from 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

Finally, a more general note: please leave your political beliefs at the door. You clearly have strong feelings about US politics that can sometimes cause you to clash with Wikipedia's policies. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17: Janet Protasiewicz is a biography of a living person, and included in her many accomplishments, is that she orchestrated the most expensive judicial election in American history. National records are notable on BLPs, from scoring the most goals, to jumping the highest. Moreover, the three donors who enabled Protasiewicz to accomplish this record are all notable, each donating an eye-popping $1 million. You have recently cherrypicked a non-notable assistant professor who described everything Soros as a "dog whistle", and now you feel it necessary to spread that viewpoint to other articles. Friend, you've been around long enough to know that just because an edit hurts your feelings, does not mean the edit should be removed. Please leave your political beliefs at the door. Listing the donors who enabled her record is encyclopedic, and absolutely meets the WP:VNOT test. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

A pedantic quibble, but Protasiewicz did not "orchestrate" it. The DNC did. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Please engage in this conversation in good faith. As my edit summary explained, that edit restored content which had previously been in the article when I quoted it to you last April. It's also not "my viewpoint"—that person is not the only reliable source to use similar language to describe the phenomenon. If you're concerned with the particular phrase, plenty more comment on the emergence of Soros-coded antisemitism.

And given all of that info, I still don't see any reason why we should use a coded attack line in a neutral Wikipedia article. As I said, the article should mention that it was Wisconsin's most expensive judicial race in history, and I'd welcome your proposals on how to word that. But naming Soros in particular would nod at all the conspiracy theories without imparting useful info for a reader. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17: "Coded attack line"? What are you talking about? All I did was add the names of the donors who enabled Protasiewicz to achieve this record amount. I'm not prepared to have my relevant and well-sourced edits reverted because of your unencyclopedic witch hunt for "dog whistles". Please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I've explained (twice) how invoking Soros is a coded antisemitic attack line leveled against some politicians and it therefore being an inappropriately non-neutral thing to include in this Wikipedia article without additional need or context. That's what I'm talking about. In addition, the argument that "it's sourced information" runs up against WP:VNOT. I've also said that per your opening post, the article could include information about the total number of dollars devoted to the election and asked if you wanted to propose an addition to the article, but you've ignored that. So all in all, it feels an awful lot like we're hitting WP:IDHT territory. I've asked for a third opinion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17: Third opinion won't touch this; there are more than two editors involved. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I'm not sure I'd call the "pedantic quibble" being involved, but I'll leave that to WP:3O (unless EvergreenFir or others would like to get involved now). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17: I'm going to take this to an RfC, where we can get input about your reason for reverting from the wider community. I have not been able to locate any previous discussion or consensus about removing notable names from Wikipedia articles because--as you assert--their inclusion represents a "coded attack line" and "dog whistle". Is there a discussion about this someplace, or a policy I may have missed? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: An RfC would be extremely premature, seeing as I just started the much lower-intensity third opinion process.

For policies, as I said above the use of loaded language is covered under WP:NPOV, specifically WP:IMPARTIAL, and your initial insistence on including the information because it's sourced is covered by WP:VNOT. In no way am I arguing that no Wikipedia article should discuss George Soros. I am saying that naming him in this biographical article without additional context evokes the "Soros-backed" political attack line that was invoked during and after the Supreme Court election.

Finally, even if you disagree with my interpretation of our policies, per WP:SSE I'd add that it doesn't seem to be common for political biographies on Wikipedia to name specific donors. Of all the biographies about other current Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, only one has any mention of political donors (Annette Ziegler; former justice and Protasiewicz's opponent Daniel Kelly also has a mention.) In nearby Michigan, none do. Additionally, Soros has funded but is not mentioned in Stacey Abrams, Beto O'Rourke, or Tom Perriello, plus (veering outside biographies) the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Priorities USA Action, or Florida Democratic Party. When it comes to the upcoming election, of the major Republican presidential candidates, only Mike Pence (tangentially, having "stronger connections") and Nikki Haley name specific political donors. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17: The only thing truly notable about this election was the amount of money spent...a US record. This is why I included this very unique and not-typically-noted piece of information. Reliable sources were all over this, and each one mentioned Soros and the other $1 million donors:

• Politico - First line: "Millions of dollars have poured into the race for Wisconsin Supreme Court".
• Wisconsin State Journal - Headline: "Janet Protasiewicz continues outraising Dan Kelly with Democratic Party help".
• Wisconsin Public Radio - Headline: "Janet Protasiewicz far outpaces Dan Kelly in fundraising for hotly contested Wisconsin Supreme Court seat".
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Headline: "Billionaires George Soros, J.B. Pritzker and the Uihleins pour millions into Wisconsin's Supreme Court race in final weeks".

Internationally...

• Winnipeg Free Press - Headline: "Liberal outraises conservative in Wisconsin court race".

Listing the donors that enabled this US record is encyclopedic and relevant. Removing this information appears to be a personal witch hunt, with obviously little basis in policy. Again, please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Reliable secondary sources exist to demonstrate the significance of campaign finance in this article, as well as to confirm the names of major donors. This topic is discussed in the articles Campaign finance and Campaign finance reform in the United States. The names of top donors to political campaigns are considered important public information, as this information reveals social and political connections, potential bias, and political leanings of both the donor and candidate. Thus, this is appropriate and valuable content to include here. Rublamb (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the third opinion, Rublamb. I've accepted it and added the information to the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)