Talk:Wendy Rogers (politician)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Arizona Start‑class Low‑importance

	Arizona portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Referring to Oath Keepers as an Anti-government Organization

The first problem I notice with the article is what I would call a misrepresentation of the Oath Keepers organization as being anti-government. This seems extreme - especially as the very name of the organization delimits it to being PRO-government, that is, provided we're talking about the US Government, having the US Constitution as its basic law.

To pillory such a large organization (which is highly respected in some-circles, by a broad swath of the population) by misrepresenting their most basic tenet, leaves a bad taste in a lot of our mouths.

In the interest of neutrality I would remove it.2603:7000:C901:5F00:C1BE:4026:A63D:2EF7 (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first sentence of Oath Keepers. soibangla (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

== Referring to her court case as being hagiographic is a big stretch. She won the case, plain and simple. It is neither positive or negative, it is just the verdict. Why are you fighting to remove the results of the case? It is the same as getting a test results for having the flu, it is not flattering or derogatory, it is just the results of a test. As you shoot down anything that is remotely positive about her, it seems very obvious to me that you want to do her as much damage as possible I am just trying to state factually what she has and has not done.

I still feel this biography needs to be taken down as it is clearly only meant to be a hit piece. SterlingSpots (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)SterlingSpotsSterlingSpots (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She won the case, plain and simple. She won an AZ appeals court decision, which was then appealed to the AZ Supreme Court, where it remains pending:

A Superior Court judge found in Young’s favor, but an appeals court overturned that verdict. On Sept. 27, the state Supreme Court heard arguments in the case.[1]

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz ruled in Young's favor, but a 2-1 decision by the state Court of Appeals last year overturned that ruling, even as the opinion acknowledged Young had a "sterling reputation." Young then appealed to the state Supreme Court.[2]

"Wendy" has held public office only since January, after five previous failures to get elected, and I don't see any record of accomplishments she has in the legislature; if you can find some, feel free to add them. The article notes the most prominent aspect of her life, her Air Force career, which ended 25 years ago. Apart from that, the primary reason for her notability is in the second paragraph of the lead.

I didn't say Referring to her court case as being hagiographic, I said your referring to her as "Wendy" rather than by her last name, as is standard here, suggests partiality. soibangla (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur. The link that was posted about her case is from last year and in a different, lower court. Her case in Arizona Supreme Court is still pending and has only been through oral arguments. The manner this was put in the article incorrectly implied as having won this state supreme court case.Legitimus (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SterlingSpots, I note you said here I have been aske[d] to try and improve the tone of this article. Well, that's...interesting. soibangla (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla Are you surprised someone would want a less negative sounding article about Ms Rogers? According to the Wiki on BLM "As the popularity of the Wikimedia projects grows, so does the editing community's responsibility to ensure articles about living people are neutrally-written, accurate and well-sourced." While you do have sources for everything you post, you seem to refuse anything of a positive nature to stay up. She was one of the first 100 women to become a pilot in the USAF, but that is not in her bio. All it says is she was in the Air Force from 1976 to 1996. I would like to add some balance to the article, that is all. Also, I have requested another editor review the article. SterlingSpots (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SterlingSpots, you seem to refuse anything of a positive nature to stay up is flatly false. Are you now willing to concede that your insistence She won the case, plain and simple is wrong? Will you concede that your whole approach of interpreting a legal decision, a primary source, was wrong and the reason it was properly removed? Do you agree that calling her "Wendy" in the article text and saying I have been aske[d] to try and improve the tone of this article is peculiar? I would like to add some balance to the article You can certainly do that, as long as it's within the bounds of policy. soibangla (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

soibangla, legal case aside, I feel like certain parts of this article could be phrased better. Even for bio article subjects who...don't have a lot of redeeming qualities, there still needs to be an element of neutrality in the layout and phrasing. For example, titling a section "Unsuccessful campaigns in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018" is a best, very clunky, and a bit prejudicial. There's also a lot of WP:RECENTISM in the topics covered, with most sources being local newspapers rather than sources from a more national or international source.Legitimus (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimus Thank you for your input. It will be interesting to see what the courts decide in the appeal. SterlingSpots (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimus, I understand what you're saying, but no one is prohibiting any editor from contributing, it's simply that SterlingSpots is going about it the wrong way. The press coverage of Rogers has not hit the national level until very recently, with the nature of her rhetoric about supposed election fraud, demanding the election to be decertified and Maricopa county officials be imprisoned for alleged but unspecified crimes.[3] It's only now that she's appearing on the national media radar. I didn't contribute anything about her previous runs for office, BTW. soibangla (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]