Talk:Scott Fitzgerald (politician)

Section blanking
IP blanked content for this article in this. I reverted the diff, but my reversion was re-reverted. I don't know enough about this topic to determine whether the blanked content should remain, but it seems valid and sourced at first glance. Can any editors who know more than I do chime in? — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 21:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 22:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * edits repeatedly made over the course of the past several months by user Snooganssnoogans represent violations of the Biographies of living persons policies. I am not a frequent wikipedia user or editor but am a resident of the State of Wisconsin with familiarity with the subject. In review of the edit history, it is evident that this user has on numerous occasions added material that does not meet the criteria of Neutral point of view, or original research. Myself and other users have attempted to remove material in violation of these polices and add material from major credible news outlets providing accurate historic context on the subject of the article--echoing material in other wikipedia articles that also speak to related matters--but the same user repeatedly reverses edits by multiple other contributors. While I again am not familiar with wikipedia editing policies, I have taken into account feedback from other users ( and modified the editing process to ensure justification of edits and thorough sourcing. This is clearly reflected in the edit history.
 * I have attempted to follow the stated policies from Wikipedia that could find on this matter which said, "If you can, simply remove the offending material."
 * Based on feedback of user Eyer and others that simply removing sections is against protocols, I have attempted to improve my edit process by clearly noting and individually sourcing each edit. Unfortunately, the user simply reverts any changes made by me or others. I do not want to be engaged in some sort of "edit war" and it seems these policies of repeatedly reverting an article to a previous version are against wikipedia policies. In particular, if there is not justification of why the added sections should be removed, I would hope they could be reinserted without simply undoing Snooganssnoogans revision again, which the user will certainly just reverse. Viewing the users history shows that they have undone revisions made by other users on 5 occasions with justifications such as "nonsense." The user is clearly not advancing a viewpoint-neutral perspective on this subject and continues to perpetuate the same editorial revisions.
 * I have attempted to make numerous individual additions that correct inaccurate information and add thoroughly cited information in small sections, but all added sections have been repeatedly blanked. The user offers no justification for reversing section additions or changes in structure made by other users.
 * For example: the article inaccurately indicates that the subject is unopposed in the congressional primary. This is false, and easily disproven (the subject has a primary opponent in the April 11 primary). This was corrected, and the edit was reversed by user Snooganssnoogans.
 * Other sections repeatedly reinserted include information that clearly fails to meet a neutral point of view, and had been repeatedly flagged by other users as being editorial in nature. For example, the article as edited interprets a statement from the subject to "suggesting that urban voters (who are more likely to vote for Democrats) do not reflect the real electorate.[11]" This is not stated anywhere or paraphrased in the cited material and is purely extrapolation, as are many editorial additions made by the poster that other users have attempted to flag and reverse, but have been repeatedly reinserted.
 * Other sections have repeatedly been flagged by multiple users over recent months as both non-viewpoint neutral, and not specific to the subject of the article. By repeatedly deleting additions of sourced information from multiple users and reversing any deletion of content violating the Biographies of living persons policies, this user is vandalizing and detracting from the informational value of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.253.222 (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You've had a frustrating experience, but to use a loose analogy, driving off with the car when you and the dealership are still negotiating a price tends not to end in your favor. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ok, again requesting admin help to attempt to remedy the violations of policies on biographies of living persons given that the material is repeatedly re-inserted, and per policies, "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." Per the recommendation for "If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns" I will be report the issue to the noticeboard as directed in the page edit guidelines. I have attempted to flag for admin or user help that such materially has been repeatedly inserted. 97.83.253.222 (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Could I kindly request you please quote the parts that you deem unsourced, poorly sourced, potentially libellous, or some combination thereof? Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There is only one substantive issue you raise ("suggesting that urban voters (who are more likely to vote for Democrats) do not reflect the real electorate.[11]"). This is what the cited source says: "“State legislators are the closest to those we represent,” Scott Fitzgerald, the majority leader in the Wisconsin Senate, said in a statement after Republicans voted on the changes before dawn on Wednesday. They’re the ones who hold town hall meetings, who listen directly to constituents across the state. Legislators should stand, he said, “on equal footing with an incoming administration that is based almost solely in Madison.” That argument is particularly debatable in Wisconsin, where the legislature has been heavily gerrymandered. But Mr. Fitzgerald’s jab at Madison was notable, too. Mr. Fitzgerald was essentially recasting the new Democratic governor, Tony Evers, not as the winner of a statewide mandate but as a creature of the capital city, put there by people in the cities." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see any serious BLP violations, or if there are I have missed them in the vast morass of recent edits. At any rate, I have full protected this page for two days, since there has been a lot of edit warring, and very little discussion. I make no comment on the content issues herein. As always, should you need it, dispute resolution is available. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)