Talk:Teresa Leger Fernandez/Archive 1

Archive 1

Seeking Consensus - Dark Money in New Mexico Congressional Campaign

Edit Summary: Consensus is needed following reverted edits and unresolved discussion to add high quality sources and correctly characterize dark money in the 2020 New Mexico 3rd congressional district Democratic primary. This issue has attracted national attention and involves individual reputations. The existing version cites allegations by political candidates and biased reporting in the local newspaper to imply that winning candidate Teresa Leger Fernandez and her campaign were associated with use of dark money, which would be a Federal Election Commission violation. The existing version also suggests that candidate Valerie Plame may be anti-Semitic. For background see: Teresa Leger Fernandez Forum.

Current paragraph:

2020 U.S. House election After incumbent Representative Ben Ray Luján announced that he would not seek re-election in 2020 and run for Tom Udall's seat in the United States Senate, Leger Fernandez announced her candidacy to succeed him. In the Democratic primary, Leger Fernandez faced six opponents, including New Mexico State Representative Joseph L. Sanchez and Valerie Plame, an author and former CIA officer.[12] During the primary, Leger Fernandez was criticized for attack ads against Plame, including one that featured swastikas superimposed over Plame's eyes, a reference to Plame's past comments that were perceived as anti-Semitic.[13] Legar Fernandez later denied any involvement with the ads.[14] Leger Fernandez was also criticized for her campaign's use of funds donated by so-called "dark money" groups that do not disclose their donors.[15] In response, Leger Fernandez denounced "dark money" groups and pledged support for campaign finance reform.[16] During the campaign, Leger Fernandez was endorsed by Congresswoman Deb Haaland, EMILY's List, and The Santa Fe New Mexican.[17][18]

Proposed replacement paragraph:

After incumbent Representative Ben Ray Luján announced that he would not seek re-election in 2020 and run for Tom Udall's seat in the United States Senate, Leger Fernandez announced her candidacy to succeed him. In the Democratic primary, Leger Fernandez faced six opponents, including New Mexico State Representative Joseph L. Sanchez and Valerie Plame, an author and former CIA officer. Attack ads against Plame, included one that featured swastikas superimposed over Plame’s eyes, an apparent reference to her retweet of an anti-Semitic article, for which she repeatedly apologized. Separate ads appeared in support of Leger Fernandez. Some opposing candidates alleged that Leger Fernandez and her campaign had accepted dark money. Leger Fernandez, denounced the attacks on Plame and categorically denied any connection with the sponsors, who were later identified. Leger Fernandez is endorsed by End Citizens United and Let America Vote, organizations that advocate campaign finance reform and protection of the right to vote. TRGreen (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)— TRGreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

I strongly oppose that wording. Some opposing candidates alleged is WP:WEASEL. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what I said. This was discussed at length on my talk page. The conversation was getting very WP:FORUM-y, and the user has a habit of being a little...long-winded...in their writing. I assumed they had moved on. KidAd (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Guess not. I hadn't checked the user's contributions until you pointed it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It was almost a month ago. They were kind enough to interact with me on my talk page after some reverts. I was a little wary of WP:COI, and the user assured me that they were a resident of the district who had met both primary candidates, but was not directly affiliated with the campaign. A similar unregistered user had previously (like, one day before) appeared to make similar edits (here). The user also assured me that "Collg76" and "TRGreen" were not the same individual. Either way, I attempted to cordially explain that the text violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:PUFF, and WP:SYNTH, but the user didn't seem to grasp it. I don't doubt that this person may have insider knowledge that we lack, but the text just isn't supported by sources. KidAd (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am a new user, although not new to Wikipedia, who is trying to improve the quality of an article, and I have no objection to experienced and honest editing. The referenced Forum provides justifications in direct response to prior criticisms, which I can expand if needed. Rather than dismissing my bona fides and knowledge, I ask only for a response to the substance of the proposed edit based on a careful review of the additional sources, which are reliable and add materially to the existing article. The intent of the wording “some opposing candidates alleged” was to summarize accurately the source of allegations that tied Ms. Leger Fernandez to dark money instead of detailing names, places, and dates, which are contained in the citation. If alternate language is more appropriate, so much the better. TRGreen (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have tried explaining this to you cordially. Now all I will say is that your proposed text is not going to be used in the article. KidAd (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Closing Commentary

Extended content

Dear @KidAd:, Since we don’t know each other in the real world, I am addressing this note to your Wiki-persona, as well as to senior editors such as @Muboshgu: and @Certes:. Performance evaluation may not be your thing, and my apologies if this straightforward and constructive critique of my experience with you as an editor is too “WP:FORUM-y” (reading time 4 minutes.) Certainly, I am not the first human to enter the Wikipedian world for the first time because they saw something wrong with an article concerning an issue they knew and cared about. If my mistake was to assume good faith and keep on trying to collaborate with you, maybe yours was to pre-judge me as a slimy political operative with hidden motives and therefore refuse to engage with respect or tune in to what I was saying. To review, when your Wikipedia page popped up at the top of a Google search for New Mexico 3rd congressional district Democratic candidate Teresa Leger Fernandez, it was on first glance well-done. But there was that one paragraph conveying the impression that Ms. Leger Fernandez used dark money in her campaign and that her opponent Valerie Plame may be anti-Semitic. A small-beans case of Democratic fratricide perhaps, but those were serious allegations, which you amplified by relying on accusations by political opponents contained in biased reporting from the local paper. Assuming this was unintentional, it was still off the mark. As I disclosed to you, I know both candidates to have honorable records of public service; more importantly, since the issue received wide coverage, it seemed simple enough to fix errors and omissions. Without being wedded to exact language, my proposed edit expanded reliable sources, such as a detailed article by the Washington Post head fact checker, noted that two prominent campaign reform organizations had endorsed Ms. Leger Fernandez, and swapped out the passive voice, which obscured as much as it revealed. Instead of so zealously guarding your article, with a few minutes of attention to what I was saying and a few changes you could have produced a more accurate and higher quality article. As a long-time Wikipedia reader, I had trusted that Wikipedians were authentically striving to build a more perfect encyclopedia for the information age; I tended to discount the many stories about obscure hierarchies, contradictory rules, and toxic editors. Call me naïve. Wow, ouch, my first experience behind the curtain was a shock. Could it really be that Wikipedia suffers and is, like the rest of the internet, a dark place demanding constant vigilance against dangerous Vandals and arrogant Trolls who lurk in anonymity and have no sense of humor? I am not suggesting that you are one of these. But I have worked for decades with uncounted editors, reviewers, and publishers of all temperaments. I have also been in five wars and am used to the suck. Honestly, where helpful guidance would have been welcome, you instead subjected me to a relentless bombardment of rules, violations, and lectures. Whether you intended it or not, here is how you came across: passive-aggressive, with an impatient, irritated, condescending tone that was, to use the technical term – snarky. More concerning, your apparent enthusiasm for asserting editorial power revealed an authoritarian streak that seemed out of place in a forum founded on freedom and a strong dose of creative anarchy. I understand your logic of suspicion, but the most unfortunate problem was that in focusing on slamming me, you seemed to have freed yourself from any obligation to pay attention to the substance of what I was communicating. Even if your own first dive into Wikipedia was an adventure of a different kind, you must have found that trying to get things right must contend with an idiosyncratic and technically esoteric package. Having spent much of my life living overseas and learning languages, I admire those who dedicate themselves to Wikispeak and Wikiculture, but don’t intend to go that far. You, on the other hand, may be destined to become an advanced Wikipedian. I have doubts but do hope that you will abandon the editorial bullying, improve your research diligence, and sharpen your English language skills, a life sport. You pinned a lot of labels on me. In response, here are some examples of Wikipedia wisdom that you might find helpful: WP: DISPUTE RESOLUTION and WP: ETIQUETTE, especially the commonsense advice to stay cool, assume good faith, and find compromise. There is also WP:Please do not bite the newcomers and WP:Don't be obnoxious. I loved this one: WP:Don't be a jerk. WP:Don't be a fanatic is probably the most important, in this instance for its pointed guidance such as, “Don’t be too certain: Too much certainty can lead to assumptions of bad faith, or to inability to listen to others properly, both sources of conflict.” A couple of closing comments: First, because for better and for worse Wikipedia is so pervasive and powerful, if your article stands as is it will unjustly tarnish the reputations of two real people, particularly when it is the first thing curious people read about a new member of Congress. Second, by refusing to make any alterations, more than quality suffers. It’s a thin line between misinformation and disinformation, but you crossed it. This critical distinction must be so fundamental to the purpose and integrity of Wikipedia that it does not even appear as a formal principle WP:DISINFORMATION. I suspect your inclination will be to whip out your WP:List of policies and guidelines bludgeon, but there’s no need to respond. As you so strongly wish, I am “moving on” and will do something that promises more fun like, say, putting my hand in a wasp nest or seeing if I can catch COVID-19.TRGreen (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. My sole contribution to this article was to fix a wikilink to lead to Las Vegas, New Mexico rather than Las Vegas, Nevada. I don't know enough about the topic to help judge this debate. Political topics can be tricky, with normally reliable sources supporting whichever side matches their political leanings. This talk page is the right place to discuss the matter, but you could also invite a third opinion or seek expert advice at WikiProject Politics/American politics. Certes (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

^ WP:WALLOFTEXT. (Other walls are due to lack of awareness of good practices, such as when an editor tries to cram every one of their cogent points into a single comprehensive response that is roughly the length of a short novel...an alleged wikilawyering strategy whereby an editor accused of wrongdoing defends their actions with a giant chunk of text that contains so many diffs, assertions, examples, and allegations as to be virtually unanswerable). KidAd (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)