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 sourcedmust 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.
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 is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
