Talk:Karla Jurvetson

Recent edits
Do you have a conflict of interest with Karla Jurvetson? The material you've added over the past few months seems highly promotional to me. In addition, raw external weblinks in the text body is something frowned upon by Wikipedia. Even if the links were changed to references, many of these appear to be highly primary sources - things like Standford's website having a single sentence call out to her as a donor just isn't independent or significant. If Jurvetson's donation was significant, let's see a WP:SECONDARY source, i.e. a newspaper article or the like, and a substantial one. For example, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/20/mystery-warren-super-pac-funder-revealed-140233 is fine, but the party itself being donated to is not. SnowFire (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing
I hope my edit summary wasn't too antagonistic, but I think this issue has come up before on this article, and apparently the hint hasn't been taken from edit summaries and the like. Sourcing on Wikipedia is tricky sometimes. In general, for a biography article like this, we really really really want sources that cover Jurvetson specifically and mention her actions by name. The tone of the article previously was having Jurvetson "take credit" for far too much; one donor, no matter how extravagant, can win an election solo. You can imagine a fabulist who just cited a lot of political articles describing real events and real elections, and then implying that SnowFire or SF Public Editor or whoever else was responsible for all of it. It's okay to use sources that don't mention the topic (Jurvetson in this case) by name sometimes, for basic background material, but it can't be used to prop up claims of importance or relevance.

And even when Jurvetson is mentioned, we have to take the source into account. It's great we have some in-depth stories from Puck (media company), but put bluntly, they don't appear quite as prestigious as mainstream news like The Washington Post or the like. So we have to be careful about what kind of claims we use - Jurvetson's beliefs and basic actions, sure. But stuff like "the most impactful donor?" Probably not. We'd need a really good source to include a claim like that, and even then, it'd probably be qualified as who's saying it.

Lastly, circular references to other Wikipedia articles are super-forbidden. That said, if there's sources within Jared Tinklenberg that support the claims in the early life bio here, then those can be ported over directly, just not a cite of the Wikipedia article itself. SnowFire (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * If you're just going to remove "better source needed" without replacing it, then I'm going to rephrase the section to enforce source-text integrity. I presume you don't want that, so that means finding an actually good source that verifies the full statement.
 * Also, thanks for adding a cite on the Wisconsin Supreme Court case, but that makes me wonder if it's worth mentioning at all. 20K as a donation is a drop in the bucket for someone of Jurvetson's wealth - wealthy donors routinely donate far more than that to various causes, it's not generally notable.
 * I don't understand your preferred way of phrasing Jurvetson not supporting Sinema. It's not a secret, Sinema left the Democratic Party, it's okay to acknowledge that fact out loud.  There's no shame in Jurvetson being a Democrat, just don't dress it up as if she's a non-partisan influencer solely donating on the issues, her stance is pretty well-known and attested to.  SnowFire (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)