Talk:2024 Washington Attorney General election

Abortion question

@KimberlyAnd @BottleOfChocolateMilk Is the current phrasing I proposed on the abortion passage acceptable for both of you, or do you have any comments? Trying to resolve this without edit warring. ATM I think you've both violated the 3-revert rule, but I don't want to drag this into ANEW unless it becomes necessary. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The current phrasing is good, it supports what the sources say. I was planning to make a similar edit later on but you beat me to it. SlackingViceroy (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Bottle's version was more-or-less correct, but the "would not uphold unconstitutional laws" phrasing was unclear: it requires the context that he was referring to Washington's state constitution (which includes abortion protections).

My only question is whether "personally opposes" is clear, because it doesn't distinguish between Serrano meaning it as "I think it's wrong but should be legal" or "I think it should be illegal but that won't affect how I enforce Washington's laws." (I'm not sure which one Serrano himself meant.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources do seem to suggest a bit of both (but probably more of the former). However, I believe the current phrasing is good as is, otherwise we are in danger of doing original research. SlackingViceroy (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I think "would not uphold unconstitutional laws" is more in general and specifically related to gun-control legislations. I think he made it clear that he believes abortion legislations are constitutional. KimberlyAnd (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of past jobs

Same here: I don't want this to turn into a second edit war.

Right now, my impression is that Serrano's work with a conservative legal foundation is important enough to be included, but Brown working at a law firm wouldn't be, unless there's something that makes that law firm notable. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Pacifica Law Group is his current full time position and is intrinsically tied to the AG's office's legal strategy in the state. It is very relevant. KimberlyAnd (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of mentioning their individual law firms? Why not just say they're lawyers? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Their organizations are very relevant to Washington's and the AG's history. Unless the information is inaccurate, please do not undo or delete accurate and relevant information. KimberlyAnd (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

What? How are these individual law firms "very relevant to Washington's and the AG's history?" These candidate descriptions are not supposed to be a resume, it's just supposed to describe their job. Please find me any example of an attorney whose Wikipedia bio includes the law firm they work for instead of just saying "attorney" or "lawyer." Also, you still have yet to provide proof that the photo you uploaded is in the public domain as you claim it is. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

No way you actually tried to delete my comment lmfao. Did you seriously think I wouldn't notice? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you are talking about. If I did, I apologize as it was not intentional. I don't even know if that is possible. KimberlyAnd (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is right there in the revision history. Any response to what I said in the comment you removed? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@KimberlyAnd: Could you please explain further? What do you mean by "intrinsically tied to the AG's office's legal strategy in the state"? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Both Serrano's and Brown's organization are very relevant to this race. Serrano's organization are in multiple litigations against Washington, with the AG's office defending. Pacifica has done over half million in contracts in 2022 alone. Very relevant considering they are both running the AG's office. KimberlyAnd (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.fiscal.wa.gov/Spending/Checkbook2123 KimberlyAnd (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm; I think Serrano's organization seems relevant and notable enough to get a brief mention, in that case, and I think it's reasonable to insert that information (@Fifthfive let me know if you disagree).

On the other hand, Pacifica seems to me like it doesn't really have anything notable enough to warrant including it. (Half a million in revenue each year actually seems like very little for a law firm, but more importantly, nobody's heard of it so it won't mean anything to the average reader.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

However, if you have a link to reputable secondary (e.g. news) sources reporting on it, and describing it as unusual or notable, that would be enough to merit inclusion. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

These are primary sources. I hopped this platform to provide balance as there was none. Washington media has even less balance. This is why I am resorting to primary. I don't understand what reputable secondary sources you are asking for? I'm trying to put their current job that is relevant to the office they are running for. KimberlyAnd (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, TBH I just don't care enough to argue about this, so placing "and lawyer at Pacifica" at the end seems OK. Same goes for Serrano's org. You can add both of those. (Please don't edit the abortion statement or insert the image of Serrano without first discussing this on the talk page.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Not Pacifica but is an example of how significant private law groups are to the AG's office in Washington. https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article292818809.html KimberlyAnd (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Half a million in revenue is revenue from the AG's office alone from only one year. That may be insignificant if it is a one time thing, but it's not. It is reoccurring. Whether these contracts are for legitimate services or is to serve a political purpose, it is notable. In addition, Pacifica has intervened in multiple cases that Serrano's organization has litigated in and that the AG's office were involved in. Pacifica is used as a "private military contractor" in Washington.

If Serrano's organization is noteworthy enough to be mentioned, so is Brown's organization. KimberlyAnd (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Half a million in revenue is revenue from the AG's office alone from only one year. That may be significant if it is a one time thing, but it's not. It is reoccurring. Whether these contracts are for legitimate services or is to serve a political purpose, it is notable. In addition, Pacifica has intervened in multiple cases that Serrano's organization has litigated in and that the AG's office was involved in. Pacifica is used as a "private military contractor" in Washington.

If Serrano's organization is noteworthy enough to be mentioned, so is Brown's organization. KimberlyAnd (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@KimberlyAnd: Since it seems like you're fairly new here, I'll let you know that Wikipedia's edit-warring rules are not suggestions. Even if you're entirely correct, and this material is very relevant and important, you will probably face sanctions if you try to revert the page again. In general, when a neutral third editor says you should do something (or if it's 2 against 1), that's the point where you have to back down and discuss things on the talk page.

It's just like how you can't ignore a court, even if you're really sure that the court is wrong. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Ideally we would have perfect courts that always make the right decision, but we don't, so instead we have to respect the ones we have, or Wikipedia will turn into a war of all against all. Don't worry: if you're right, we'll switch to your version soon enough, once we've seen more evidence of your position.

If you're wondering why the version without any mention of Pacifica is favored, see here and also here. The rule of thumb is that when there's an ongoing dispute, the status quo (the version prior to the disputed edit) is favored. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, this is useful. I am fairly new here. Talks like these do help.

It's pretty difficult to engage in anything with @BottleOfChocolateMilk especially when he engages in ad hominem with comments such as "You're seriously pathetic." Sure I slipped it, but I did apologize. I provided reasoning for all edits but the justifications were not noted and the interrogations continued. It's clear any consensus is not possible with @BottleOfChocolateMilk, therefore my engagement became fairly minimal with him/her, especially after the personal attack.

After reading some of your provided link, makes me rethink the abortion issue as those multiple sources are inconsistent and disputed. The way it is written right now, it requires "assuming" and reading between the lines, which may not be accurate.

As for the photo, the same photo are made public to media companies for release. KimberlyAnd (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Page wanderer here. Publicly accessible/publicly distributed ≠ public domain, any photo made since 1989 is copyrighted unless the person who took it/owns the copyright actually releases it with a license, which there is none on the page. reppop^talk 03:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@fifthfive Please provide input into this discussion. Revert, report, does not indicate a sign of being a neutral third party. KimberlyAnd (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Revert, report, and ghost...

KimberlyAnd (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see our policy on personal attacks. (Yes, I've also warned Bottle for doing the same thing.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves

Few things. Conservative the non-profit maybe, tagging it as so opens the rest to reciprocal treatment. "Conservative" needs to be removed. We already discussed about providing complete transparency on both candidate's current employment, as they are both relevant. KimberlyAnd (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's the equivalent of tagging Brown with "Lawyer at progressive/liberal law group." KimberlyAnd (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait, is Pacifica a progressive/liberal advocacy group? It looked like a regular for-profit legal firm to me. "Conservative advocacy group" is fine and a more precise description of what he does than just "legal nonprofit", which could mean anything.

If Brown works for some other progressive/liberal advocacy group, then sure, that can be added, but I'm not aware of any sources saying that. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I said "law group, not "advocacy group." I am not going to explain again how Pacifica law group is more notable to the AG race than Serrano's organization. I explained this already in depth with primary sources provided. Also, providing labels such as "conservative" or "progressive" are interpretations that should not be taken lightly. If these interpretations are applied, they must be applied across the board.

@Closed Limelike Curves you are starting to take on a role that is less of a moderator. KimberlyAnd (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I explained this already in depth with primary sources provided.

Yes, that's basically the issue—see WP:PRIMARY on why Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources to primary ones. That's especially the case for notability.

If you can find reliable secondary sources commenting on Pacifica and explaining how it's important, we can include that in the article. Primary sources can establish basic facts, but can't establish notability. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring

My primary push is for maximum transparency of information based on a consistent standard across the board. In that quest, I have been subject to many accusations that can be found in WP:AAEW.

As I pushed for balance, it is obvious the dominant force in this community does not allow for such balance. I would rather be in violation of WP:3RR than simply rollover. KimberlyAnd (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)