Talk:Wendy Rogers (politician)

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

Should "Affiliation with militia group" be changed to "Affiliation with the Oath Keepers"? I feel as though the specific militia is more significant than generic affiliation with a militia group, and would better inform the reader about the contents of that subsection. Thewritestuff92 (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Court case
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)
 * 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:


 * "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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)


 * , 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)

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)
 * , I understand what you're saying, but no one is prohibiting any editor from contributing, it's simply that 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. 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)

Re: "Attempts to overturn 2020 presidential election"
Two thoughts:
 * 1) Would this subsection be better titled, "Support for overturning the 2020 presidential election"? "Attempt" sounds way more important/consequential than what she's actually done
 * 2) The fact that Rogers appeared on a TV network that promotes anti-semitism seems independently significant, warranting its own subsection. But we probably need a better citation, e.g., this one, which better satisfies BLP -- see the WP article on The Forward, describing it as "politically progressive".

Thewritestuff92 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a problem with using The Forward as a source. Per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"; in other words, provided they have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy we require it doesn't matter if they advance a particular political position. It also has the advantage over the NYT piece linked above of actually mentioning Rogers. No objection to your first proposal though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed lede edit
I took a stab at improving the final paragraph of the lede by better summarizing the article content and adding a reference to Rogers' prominent role in promoting 2020 election conspiracies. I would welcome any feedback :)


 * Since her election, Rogers has emerged as a divisive and controversial figure, embracing far right extremist rhetoric and promoting false claims about the 2020 presidential election. Rogers is a member of the Oath Keepers militia, whose members took part in the 2021 U.S. Capitol attack. In March 2022, Rogers was censured by the Arizona Senate for remarks to the America First Political Action Conference endorsing political violence.

Thewritestuff92 (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting the 2022 Buffalo shooting is a False flag
White nationalist Nick Fuentes posted a message describing the Buffalo massacre as a "new false flag." Wendy Rogers has repeatedly promoted and defended Fuentes. She also spoke via video at a conference he organized in February in Orlando.

On the same day as the 2022 Buffalo shooting she posted to her Gab social media account "Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:A4F6:AA8B:4FAC:113E (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I do believe that that is what she was implying, however we would need a WP:RS before putting it in the article. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

''Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (R), a member of the far-right group the Oath Keepers, appeared to endorse an unevidenced conspiracy theory that the Buffalo shooting was a government operation. Rogers wrote Saturday on the right-leaning social media platform Gettr that “Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo.” Rogers’ post—a play on the title of a Chet Hanks song—alluded to the conspiracy theory that government agents, or “feds,” secretly orchestrate mass shootings to create support for gun control laws or to distract from other issues.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:A4F6:AA8B:4FAC:113E (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Shootings
The 2022 Buffalo shooting and the Robb Elementary School shooting are different events. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fixed the error. soibangla (talk)

"Globalist puppet" vs international Jewish conspiracy
Yes, it can certainly be considered an antisemitic dogwhistle (especially since Zelensky is Jewish), but globalist doesn't always refer to Jews and it doesn't look like Rogers explicitly mentioned Jews or a Jewish conspiracy. , thanks for improving the article, but I think it needs attribution for who is drawing this connection. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)