This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
Latest comment: 23 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion
@BottleOfChocolateMilk I feel like there could be a better way to show or describe the ideological sway of each of the potential candidates, since their leanings are evident in more than just media labels. Talthiel (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Talthiel: Like what? I don't think we need to have an entire section describing their ideology in detail. In both this supreme court race and the previous one, media outlets have acknowledged reality and started describing candidates as "liberal" and "conservative," as well as saying the court has a liberal or conservative majority. It's simple, concise, and backed up by reliable sources. What's the problem? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well I think we should just describe them as liberal or conservative. But I feel like its unnecessary for the footnote "described by the media as X" when some of them have said they are X, and their decisions and pasts point towards being X. For example Colon and Taylor were former Democratic assembly-people. While Lazar was hired as an assistant attorney general to Schimel and defended Act 10, (the anti-union legislation), and Act 43 (the gerrymander), and additionally she is a contributor to the Federalist Society. While Grogan was a supporter of Kelly in 2023, and worked to undermine his conservative opponent. Which makes me feel like putting "described by the media as X" makes it up for debate, or makes it less clear, plus we don't usually label the ideological sway of candidates until after they file, but I could be wrong. I also didn't intend to sound like I denied the partisan reality of these elections, I more just feel the footnotes are unnecessary. Talthiel (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Talthiel: I think you're greatly overestimating the amount of knowledge that readers of this page will have about the candidates. Most people won't know anything about these people and won't put in the effort to research them, so it's very useful to have a convenient note clarifying which ideological side they fall on. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
then don't mince words, I feel like using "described by the media" obfuscates the facts of what these people believe in. Talthiel (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
