Talk:Debora Juarez

Controversies Section might be a healthy balance

Wow, what is going on here? There should be a balance between including a controversies section which can be judged for notoriety as time progresses vs wholesale deletion of other editor's additions. At the very least, maybe content should be moved into a talk section and discussed when it's being deleted. There are also some real 3RR violations going on these past few days. Jwfowble (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As per WP:BLP, contentious material about a living person that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, and "the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Also, "controversy" sections should be avoided. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've escalated this to dispute resolution. It's a total farce. Wallyfromdilbert has systematically scrubbed every bit of criticism from this page, as well as from other members of the Seattle City Council. All of the criticism is well-documented by legitimate, respectable news outlets. 73.239.192.63 (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to make accusations about other editors, then you need to provide evidence. You also need to stop your personal attacks, especially when this was your 6th edit ever made. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but that document you linked to says "For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section." It's not up to just one editor to create both sides of an argument but it's also hard to do that if the section gets removed. Would "public behavior" be a better section? Debora has been in the spotlight for somewhat crude comments on hot mics and being a bit gruff/ready to tussle, even with councilmember o'brien about privilege. She's got MS and I'm sure some days are better than others for patience with off-topic stuff. By my reading of the BLP section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced if it's well sourced and not completely inflammatory, it should be allowed to be edited by others rather than simply removed. Jwfowble (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how one local news source and an opinion radio talk show are "significant criticism". One is not even a reliable source. Also concerns about "WP:RECENT" for a BLP, which is why these types of issues are supposed to be discussed on the talk page. (PS. I'm not sure what your comments about "MS" mean, but if they refer to personal information about an individual then you need to be careful what you write, and may want to remove it unless it is something sourced if it is inappropriate). Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want more/other sources, that's probably something to suggest. Saying "take it to the talk page" multiple times while adding to the talk page yourself isn't as productive as it could be. I'm not on board with 192.63's re-insertion statements, because edit wars get fueled by multiple sides.... I've been there. Re MS - https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/councilmember-debora-juarez-shares-battle-with-multiple-sclerosis/281-486426067 Juarez acknowledges her disease and background has helped form her personality. She’s known at Seattle City Hall for a biting sense of humor and directness. “As far as shaping my personality -- absolutely. Adversity isn’t new to me," she said. “This kind of power I have is baked in my DNA -- raised Blackfeet, raised Native American, raised Latina.” https://www.seattlechannel.org/CouncilConversations/episodes?videoid=x78709 She has juggled single motherhood and a career with multiple sclerosis, and survived cancer three times. Jwfowble (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked for more sources before I removed anything, and I couldn't find reliable sources for the information. As per BLP policy, contentious information that is poorly sourced is supposed to be removed. I tried reaching out to the editor on their talk page, and if they had responded there or here, I could have talked with them and explained these things. Instead of arguing over another editor (if you want to respond to the AN3 report against them, please feel free), let's stick to the content of the article and our reasons for or against including the information. (PS, I don't see what her medical condition has to do with how she treats others, and that kind of speculation seems inappropriate. Just some advice.) Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's specific to that particular incident, but the quoted article and she herself says her personality and bluntness/directness have been shaped by adversity including ongoing MS and 3 battles with cancer, as well as cited-in-article ethnic background. Jwfowble (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing about the particular incident and your speculation is inappropriate. I'm not going to continue discussing this medical topic. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

73.239.192.63 - You cannot insert disparaging claims about living people and cite Fox News (or at least I assume that's what q13fox.com is) as your main source of information. If you have higher quality sources (such as the New York Times or the Washington Post), then please use those, otherwise the information cannot be included. The exemptions to the three revert rule include "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." so it is less likely that Wallyfromdilbert will get sanctioned for this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Q13Fox is the local news/tv station in the Seattle area. They're actually not the most Fox News-like affiliate of the 4 networks in Seattle. Komo/Sinclair has that distinction. There could be other citations added (although I don't think most local political dealings would make it into national publications like NYT or WaPo), but I don't particularly endorse the way that recent incident is being added to all/most councilmember pages without a deeper connection to the individual councilmember's general behavior. Jwfowble (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A criticism is not a "disparaging claim." And Q13 Fox, the local Fox affiliate, is NOT the same thing as Fox News, just like the local NBC affiliate is not the same thing as NBC News. Local left-wing sources (e.g., The Stranger) are even acknowledging the controversy surrounding Debora Juarez. There's a YouTube video of her (taken from the Seattle City Hall's TV channel) being condescending to a citizen with 600,000+ views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMrBFNoHBkg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.192.63 (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires coverage in reliable, published sources to make sure that information is notable and relevant to the understanding of a topic, especially a claim about a living person. The Youtube link is not a reliable source because writing anything based on that would be called "original research". What article(s) from The Stranger are you referring to? The only one I can find is about how the constituent is "annoying" and only mentions Juarez once. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You win. Go ahead and make it more of a campaign brochure than it already is. 73.239.192.63 (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia wouldn't work without reliable sources. If you want to discuss content, you should do so. If you do not plan on responding further, I assume I can remove the neutrality tag you inserted. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove it, and I report you again. Simple as that. 73.239.192.63 (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

What issues do you have with the article? You should provide reasons for inserting the tags. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. You've been edit warring for days now. You remove every legitimate, well-sourced criticism of Seattle City Council members. You dismiss it as "non-notable," acting as the sole judge of what constitutes real news. News flash: Everybody in Seattle disagrees with you. 73.239.192.63 (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If you can provide links to reliable sources, I will help add information. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

We already did, like four times. So, here it is again, for the fifth time. I eagerly await your excuse for why Q13 Fox, a local TV station which is NOT the same as Fox News, is not a legitimate news source. https://q13fox.com/2019/03/21/seattle-city-council-blasted-for-ignoring-public-testimony/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.192.63 (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

And here's the one from The Stranger, which says: "Since the video of Schwartz went viral, the City may be more inclined to listen to his concerns. Schwartz says he’s heard from both Mayor Jenny Durkan and Councilmember Lorena Gonzalez, who apologized for his treatment by the Council." https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/03/27/39740279/correction-constituent-ignored-by-city-council-is-not-fucking-annoying 73.239.192.63 (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Those sources only make minor mentions of Juarez for interrupting the constituent. Also, The Stranger article is an opinion blog piece that is mostly about how the constituent in the video is or is not "fucking annoying". Having only a local TV news article that mentions the incident does not seem adequate. I do not think interrupting someone one time is a relevant issue to add to an encyclopedia article. Are there any other news articles about this incident that mention Juarez or any that show criticism of her for it? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course, there are plenty. But they are opinion pieces, which you arbitrarily reject, even if they're chuck-full of factual information. You also reject local news. So, I guess the only source we can use is the New York Times, which conveniently for the Seattle City Council, doesn't cover local Seattle politics. 73.239.192.63 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, articles like opinion pieces and blogs don't have fact-checking and editorial oversight to make them reliable for factual claims, which is even more problematic when its a minor incident about a living person. Have any other local news outlets published (non-opinion) articles that mention Juarez? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

What's special about Northgate as one of many D5 neighborhoods?

I'm not sure why Northgate is getting singled out in the description of neighborhoods in D5. The council page for D5 lists 12 neighborhoods and, having lived in D5 personally, the Northgate neighborhood is just one of many. It does have some projects going on in it, but the reference being used ( "Seattle Councilmember Debora Juarez expected to announce re-election campaign") seems like a poor way to reference the composition for D5 compared to just the council wiki page, if it even needs that. Jwfowble (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The cited source is a reliable secondary source that specifically mentions Northgate when giving an overview of an upcoming election for the district. We generally go with what the reliable sources feel is important to mention. A quick Google search shows several capital projects that Juarez has worked on in Northgate, and so it seems relevant for the repeated claims in sources that she focuses heavily on her district. Can you find other reliable source talking about the district's location/composition that don't mention Northgate or instead mention other neighborhoods? FYI, you previously removed any reference to North Seattle at all. Why do you not want her district area mentioned? It seems particularly relevant given the claims about her focus on her district. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

My mistake on removing North Seattle. I did one edit that trimmed to referring to "North Seattle" which is how most short references to D5 are made. Then I thought it was a rather short statement and thought the re-election reference was still not the most direct one for composition of a district and just removed it. I'm 100% on board with the first edit, of just calling D5 "North Seattle" but think Northgate only makes real sense if it is highlighted in some way. It is having a light rail station developed (the reason for the overpass) and a new nhl practice facility.

Thank you for the reference re: the Executive Director title. I'm learning that Wiki policies can be different from most academic writing. Jwfowble (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that the Wikipedia article doesn't discuss Northgate elsewhere, I'm fine with removing the reference to it. I do think we should keep North Seattle, especially since so much of the press coverage about her seems to talk about her focus on her district. Feel free to make the trim if you agree. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)