Talk:Laura Fine

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laura Fine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101015739/http://elections.chicagotribune.com/editorial/laura-fine/ to http://elections.chicagotribune.com/editorial/laura-fine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

bias?

not only does a large portion of this article read as a campaign advertisement but plenty of the phrasing/sourcing seems too short/incoherent, what is the best way to go about fixing this? Shrunkenmonkey5 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Noticed this myself. Also, several of the sources for these "biased" sections are primary sources from interviews or from campaign websites. Edittttor (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I spent some time on this. @Shrunkenmonkey5 better? Edittttor (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

For sure. I do think the inline citations are something the citation article mentions is not ideal but definitely less bias/primary sources is a huge improvement. I appreciate your work :) Shrunkenmonkey5 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:No original research says "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

The deleted primary sources were reputable secondary sources.

Also WP:BLP "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."

and "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events."

The edit makes half of this section about one recent issue, so yes, it is UNDUE. If you want to include all this information, then you should also look for other information about Fine to add as well. Slava570 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Also want to be clear about something.... The contested paragraph does not sound like an advertisement in my edit. It includes both positive and negative information about her depending on the point of view of the reader. People on both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict would find things in it to critique as well as other things they might like. So it is neutral if you take a step back. The alternative sounded like a hit piece though, and that's not acceptable. Slava570 (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The local news coverage that posts a quote from an interview is a primary source. Please see WP:IV: "most of the content in an interview comes directly from whoever is being interviewed, and may contain statements that are not accurate or verifiable. The interview may sometimes represent the subject speaking about themselves, in which case it isn't independent of them."

The information in the Personal Life section from her legislative biography is self-published. A reliable source is needed for this information. Please see WP:BLPSELFPUB: "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim."

If you want to include all this information, then you should also look for other information about Fine to add as well.

This is not a requirement for editing pages. No editor is required to do work in one section to be able to edit in another. See WP:Balance: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources."

There are several, high-quality, national secondary sources for those claims that you have deleted multiple times now. They should not be removed simply because other claims only have primary sourcing. You are adding WP:UNDUE to primary sources.

Your edits insisting on including all these flattering primary sources go against the discussion on the talk page here where we are attempting to establish WP:CON with high quality, independent secondary sources. Edittttor (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said that the primary sources are reputable newspapers. However, as established above, primary sources are allowed, even if not preferred. In a situation where there are no secondary sources that can serve as a suitable replacement, then why can't the primary sources be used in the meantime? The other frontrunners in this race both have extensive pages, while she has very little, and you are trying to delete what little information there is. Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to educate people?

The information in the Personal Life section from her legislative biography is self-published I have no idea how that happened. I'm sorry that was my mistake. That info was deleted a while ago, and when I added it back in, I somehow put in the wrong source. In reality that information came from the Chicago Tribune, which is the leading newspaper in Chicago. Yes, it's considered a primary source here, but it's also the personal section. You would expect some personal information to be self reported. But if the Tribune published it, I don't see why it's not acceptable given how little other personal information there is.

The supposed flattering primary sources are mostly just dry statements of fact about her policy positions. If you consider them flattering, it might be because you think those policy choices are good. Other people who disagree with you would think they were not flattering at all. Example, being pro choice or being anti ICE. Some people would consider that a negative. There is nothing inherently flattering about that unless you agree with it. And isn't the point of WP to educate people about her, including her various, wide-ranging policy positions?

We can also look at it like this. Your edits were hyperfocused on a specific recent issue, and you deleted information about her other policy positions that would show a more well rounded view of her. Your edit had three separate items about AIPAC donors, including the LA fundraiser, plus 100 donors, plus the other PAC. This approach is in fact perfectly aligned with her political opponents, who are also hyperfocused on AIPAC. On the other hand, my edits added information that her campaign would be proud of, but also had information her campaign would definitely not want to use, including two of the three items about AIPAC (minus the number of donors). My edits would be considered partially positive and partially negative by both her campaign and by her opponents' campaigns.

Furthermore, your own bias is clearly shown by your selective deletions. You claimed that no primary sources could be used, but you left in her comment about genocide, while deleting her comment about a two state solution. These two things literally came from the same source, yet you conveniently left in the line that makes her look more extreme, while leaving out the line that makes her look more moderate. My edit left in both, so readers have a well rounded view of her positions. I get it, these are not secondary sources, but the need for secondary sources needs to be balanced with the need to provide a well rounded view of a person's political positions and career. Again the article structure must be "broadly neutral." If there are numerous sentences about a single issue, with very little else about her many other views, that is not a neutral structure. So the need for secondary sources needs to be balanced with the need for neutrality. Slava570 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

In a situation where there are no secondary sources that can serve as a suitable replacement, then why can't the primary sources be used in the meantime? The other frontrunners in this race both have extensive pages, while she has very little, and you are trying to delete what little information there is. Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to educate people?

WIkipedia is an encyclopedia, not a voter guide. The claim that two other candidates in a campaign have longer pages is not a reason to add lower quality sourcing to this one.

In reality that information came from the Chicago Tribune, which is the leading newspaper in Chicago. Yes, it's considered a primary source here, but it's also the personal section. You would expect some personal information to be self reported. But if the Tribune published it, I don't see why it's not acceptable given how little other personal information there is.

This information is now an editorial, which is still a primary source. See WP:RSEDITORIAL. Editorials are not a source for factual information. There being "little other personal information" is not a reason to include information, especially when that information is flattery.

The supposed flattering primary sources are mostly just dry statements of fact about her policy positions. If you consider them flattering, it might be because you think those policy choices are good. Other people who disagree with you would think they were not flattering at all. Example, being pro choice or being anti ICE.

The fact that you call things pro or anti shows they are flattering. For example, why did you not choose to say she is "pro choice" rather than "anti-life"? They're both biased terms and should both be avoided. Being pro choice or anti ICE are WP:Euphemisms and not in line with Wikipedia policy on WP:NEO. Terminology should use a WP:NPOV.

And isn't the point of WP to educate people about her, including her various, wide-ranging policy positions?

No. That would be WP:PROMO. The point of WP is to share high quality secondary sources. Not original research.

Your edits were hyperfocused on a specific recent issue, and you deleted information about her other policy positions that would show a more well rounded view of her.

I added all of the high-quality secondary sources I could find. Most national coverage happens to be about that one topic. That doesn't mean we should not share that information. The issue is that you are wanting to weight primary sources as equal to secondary sources. That is wp:undue

You claimed that no primary sources could be used, but you left in her comment

The source didn't just reflect her opinion (which would be a primary source), they made a comment about that opinion by saying she contacted them later to amend her statement. This additional information makes that statement a secondary source. The others where her opinion was just parroted are still primary sources. A single source can contain information that is both primary and secondary.

I get it, these are not secondary sources, but the need for secondary sources needs to be balanced with the need to provide a well rounded view of a person's political positions and career.

This is not Wikipedia policy. In fact, this type of editing can get you banned. See WP:BESTSOURCES: "In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, secondary published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements."

Again the article structure must be "broadly neutral." If there are numerous sentences about a single issue, with very little else about her many other views, that is not a neutral structure. So the need for secondary sources needs to be balanced with the need for neutrality.

You are misunderstanding what neutral means on Wikipedia. Please see WP:Balance: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

It is not neutral to equally weight secondary sources with primary sources. Edittttor (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Your edit re: The Chicago Tribune fixed the editorial issue, but I'll just edit it to make it a little less wordy.

WP:BESTSOURCES says "In principle, ALL articles should be based on...secondary sources" but this is in direct contradiction to WP:NOR, which says "Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense" and "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care." and "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Fundamentally, this is a biography of a living person, so balance should refer to this WP:BLPBALANCE, which says "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints" This is balance as I understood it above. And yes, I can see this says secondary sources. The point is that criticism and praise should be balanced as well in addition to balance in the way you defined above because this is about a living person.

Making over half of that section about one particular recent, negative viewpoint, which relies on guilt by association, is clearly biased. And just because there are three secondary sources about one issue does not mean there needs to be three sentences about that issue. I go back to this: "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events."

Your justification for why you selectively left in some info from the Loyola source is a stretch. You left in primary source information. Don't deny it.

It doesn't say "anti-ICE" in the article, but I said that on the talk page to you. In my opinion "pro-choice" is not a euphemism but a longstanding neutral term for how to describe that position. But that doesn't matter. If you prefer, I would have no problem with changing that to "Fine supports legal access to abortion."

If we cannot come to agreement, is there a way to get a neutral and unbiased third party to look at this? Slava570 (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the non-content dispute below is basically irrelevant. At minimum it should not be discussed here anymore, but wherever and however interpersonal conflict is handled on Wikipedia, if it's that deep.

We have before us a proposed resolution that will help to make this page better. One issue is the overuse of primary sources, as identified by the maintenance tag. @EaglesFan37 below provided us with a fairly large number of secondary sources. Regardless of any personal conflict (which I think has been blown way out of proportion and has more to do with editing on other pages) these are valid sources, and this was very helpful, so thank you.

@Aesurias has not been accused of any wrongdoing as far as I can tell, so we should assume she is able to edit this article in good faith, and she has offered to edit the article, adding these secondary sources and removing my alleged weasel words (which I fully support). Can we please just allow her to do that? I think that would be by far simplest solution, as she is already familiar with all the issues that have been raised here. @Edittttor will you allow that or do we have to do the wp:3O thing? You may end up with solutions here that will (at least partially) satisfy you... Slava570 (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for posting so much here, but as @Edittttor pointed out on another talk page I'm involved in, WP:SPECRULES you don't have to discuss every edit on the talk page before actually editing the page. There are no gatekeepers here. It would have been great if they could have just endorsed @Aesurias adding the secondary sources, so we could all show we want to improve the page in good faith, but if not, it really shouldn't stop us.

We can probably fix most if not all of the problems identified here, especially the reliance on primary sources, with a new round of edits, and we have a roadmap. Aesurias, I know you said you want to take a step back, but would you be willing to do it? If not, I will, but I think it might cause less blowback if you do it, for all the reasons we've already discussed...

The other advantage of these new secondary sources is that they are not recent. I think we should be able to remove at least one of the maintenance boxes afterward... Slava570 (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias Slava570 (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it's best if we go the WP:3O route. Edittttor (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Could someone point to the disputed edits? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu So it seems like I was confused about what was being disputed before. I guess the main points of contention now are the last two paragraphs under 2026 Congressional Campaign, especially "expert in insurance policy" and "pledged to work toward making the United States "100% reliant on green energy while creating union jobs." " I tried to summarize all the way at the bottom, but I guess that's out of date now... Slava570 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd consolidate the last three paragraphs into one but otherwise I don't see a problem with the green part. It's her reliably-sourced political platform. I'm not sure how "expert in insurance policy" is relevant for anything, though, and why it specifically is lifted out from the Sun-Times article. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'll just remove the insurance part for now then and see if I can find some better content from the healthcare articles later. Super quick question and then I think we can move on from this... Do you think we're ok to remove the maintenance boxes at the top? Slava570 (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I think so but I'd ask @Edittttor. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! @Edittttor I've just removed the insurance expert line. Can we remove the boxes now? Slava570 (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I still don't like the green energy quote because it is really an empty statement that would never be found in an encyclopedia, and both EaglesFan and Aesurias both seemed to agree that it wasn't good. If we remove that line or replace it with some actual legislation or accomplishment then I think we can remove the tags. Edittttor (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I found this article about a piece of environmental legislation she wrote to ban styrofoam. Maybe that is a good one. I'll add that and remove the tags Edittttor (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's any more politiquetoast than, say, He argues that 'dignified work, economic stability, and well-resourced neighborhoods' prevent harm better than policing Aaron Liu (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I offered to take out the two contested lines and look for suitable replacements. @Edittttor did not agree, and said we should do wp:3O. @Aaron Liu then reviewed and said they were against one of the two lines but not the other. I took out that one. But Edittttor took out the second line anyway. This is a clear sign of bad faith. What was the point of getting a third opinion if we never had any intention of listening to it? I've reinserted the line, but reworked it so it sounds as neutral as I could possibly make it. Slava570 (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Non-content dispute

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. ~2026-12992-55 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2026
(Reply to the "Your edit re ... If we cannot come to agreement, is there a way to get a neutral and unbiased third party to look at this?" comment)

The whole quote from WP:NOR: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

So you're comparing a policy about discographies and track listings to statements like "Fine became an expert in insurance policy"? This is not at all a statement of fact. This article has now clearly passed into the realm of WP:PROMO.

You can post on wp:3o if you like. But before we go there, do you have a WP:COI? You account for more than 40% of the edits on this page, and this page is more than 30% of your total main space edits. Edittttor (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Edittttor@Slava570

The "expert in insurance policy" section is from a secondary source (the Chicago Sun Times article is an overview of the candidates running). The statement was also attributed to the Chicago Sun Times in a piece that was a secondary source.

Per WP:WIKIVOICE: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil. Since the "expert in insurance policy" was attributed to the Chicago Sun Times, and the Chicago Sun Times piece wasn't an editorial, it's permissible through Wikipedia policies.

I don't see any WP:PROMO issues in the article's current state. Most articles on politicians list their political positions/stances, and all of the remaining sourcing seems to be either secondary sources or is biographical information. The articles for the other candidates in the race with articles also list their political positions.

I would strongly recommend taking any further discussion to a WP:3o. EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that the previous state of the article was not great, and came across as somewhat promotional especially with unsourced statements about campaign issues. It may be worth slightly condensing her policies if anybody still feels there are promotional issues, but I struggle to see exactly where this should happen.

@Edittttor, would you mind highlighting a few specific sentences/areas that could be worked on? Also, is the issue still about the content itself, or is it now (after the edits to try fix the issues above) about the way the content is phrased? Rarely and thankfully, everybody here is editing and discussing in good faith so a resolution is definitely within reach. :) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, @EaglesFan37, you are both prolific editors in politics topics on here; are you claiming that "[Candidate] has pledged to work toward making the United States '100% reliant on green energy while creating union jobs'" is something that you would add to a page you were editing? This is puffery. Edittttor (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, probably not. I actually noticed that sentence already and found it to be rather egregious – I checked the source and they lifted it directly from there so I added quotations to put it in her words. Probably still needs reworking. Are there any more sentences you have noted?

"expert in insurance policy" should probably be in quotations too, to clarify that it is verbatim what the source said, rather than Wikipedia's view. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Putting puffery in quotes does not make them no longer puffery. Edittttor (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Edittttor@Aesurias

Personally, I think that entire section of the article that discusses her political viewpoints should be in a new section called "Political Positions", as it's usually formatted for most candidates, with sourcing about legislation she has passed/supported related to the subject (which is the norm for most candidates).

I'm not super keen on the" 100% reliant on green energy while creating union jobs" because that did not have anything following showing specific legislation/plans she would support towards achieving that objective.

The "expert in insurance policy" is fine in a vacuum since it's quoted from a reliable secondary source, but specific legislation she has sponsored/written related to health insurance should probably be included in a following sentence(s). EaglesFan37 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

So first, I live in this district. Is that in and of itself a conflict of interest? I knew nothing about her before this election cycle. I have no personal connection to her or any of the other candidates in the race. When I started researching the candidates I saw that she had a stub with very little information on WP. If I made a lot of the edits on this page, it's probably because there was so little there to begin with. The other stat was surprising to me, but in reality I've only started editing here in earnest fairly recently, and apparently most of my edits are long winded diatribes on talk pages. I guess I haven't made that many large edits to the main space, but I think that will change in the future.

Yes, an artist's discography is comparable to a politician's viewpoints. Both can be looked at as a "product" of sorts, which they are "selling." But more importantly, they are "statements of facts" about a politician's views. They "can be verified by any educated person...without further, specialized knowledge." And we are not offering an opinion about whether those views are good or bad.

Saying someone is an insurance expert is not puffery. Other politicians may be experts on zoning regulations or foreign policy, for example. It's a legitimate statement by a secondary source in this case and already attributed to them.

Now I concede the other one does sound a bit like puffery. If a direct quote doesn't work, what if it said something like: ...reported that Fine supports moving the United States away from fossil fuels, citing a connection between green energy and union jobs.

About the wp:3o, sorry I'm still fairly new at this. Will it mean that we won't be able to edit the page for a while? It's about 3 weeks until the election, and I'm assuming some new secondary sources will be coming out that could help solve some of these issues... Slava570 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Slava570

I do not believe that living in the district is a conflict of interest, although if you have volunteered/campaigned/donated Fine in any capacity IRL, then there likely would be a WP:COI that should be disclosed.

Regarding the wp:3o, it looks like there is good faith and productive discussion happening on this talk page at the moment, so a WP:3o may not be necessary. You and @Edittttor can both still edit the page. I just didn't want the content disagreement to devolve into WP:EDITWARRING. EaglesFan37 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I recommend you should consult WP:ADVOCACY because that seems more accurate to your conduct here. Your comments about urgency because the election is coming up and the for Wikipedia to get the policy of the candidate out there fits the "The public needs to know this!" section.

About the wp:3o, sorry I'm still fairly new at this. Will it mean that we won't be able to edit the page for a while?

What you've described does not reach the level of a COI, but multiple editors have pointed out the puffery bias in your edits on this page, and when you add that you being the main editor by a significant amount, your behavior of repeatedly reverting sourced edits from others, and acting as the final arbiter of what should be included could potentially be considered WP:TE. Edittttor (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Edittttor@Aesurias@EaglesFan37

It's not about urgency, but about expediency. It could be that secondary sources will come out in the next few weeks that will make these debates moot and provide easier solutions that everyone will be happy with. In looking into puffery more, I think it's more gray area rather than definite puffery. We are talking about direct quotes attributed to sources, though the green energy line sounds maybe too positive. And there is also what I think both she and her opponents would consider negative info there. I'm sorry if I've somehow acted badly here. I'm willing to try and wait for agreement here before adding anything else to the article.

I propose that we discuss how to fix the specific instances that we have a problem with. Are you ok with my proposed change for the green energy line? Do you have an alternate proposal? I think we can try to take out "reliant" and "100%" for example.

A political positions section sounds like a good idea to me. Slava570 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Slava570 Your behavior on this has been appropriate. For most of disputed content, there are secondary sources that can be used.

For health-related legislation: , , , , , , , ,

For environment related: , ,

Other:, EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

An editor who has made almost 40% of the edits to the page and who has repeatedly reverted the edits of others without taking it to talks first is not exhibiting appropriate behavior. That's not even considering the NPOV problems. You know as well as I do that this is WP:OWN behavior. The fact that better sources exist for some of the edits doesn't matter if they were never used in the article. Edittttor (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

An editor who has made almost 40% of the edits to the page and who has repeatedly reverted the edits of others without taking it to talks first is not exhibiting appropriate behavior

Most wikipedia articles tend to have a user who has written a significant share of the article. @Edittttor They've only had one revert AFAICT, and @Slava570.

The fact that better sources exist for some of the edits doesn't matter if they were never used in the article

If better sourcing exists that could resolve the current content dispute, it should be added. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

That comment got sent before I finished.

Most wikipedia articles tend to have a user who has written a significant share of the article. @Edittttor They've only had one revert AFAICT, and @Slava570.

Was trying to say that, at least since me and @Aesurias joined the conversation, @Slava570 has seemed to be genuinely trying to resolve the content dispute and making concessions. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Edittttor All @Slava570 said was that a lot of the current sourcing issues would likely be fixed as more sources will continue to be published as the election approaches. That doesn’t seem to be WP:ADVOCACY and they didn’t discuss urgency.

If there is WP: TE here, it would go in both directions. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

First the comment about me potentially edit-warring and now an even more direct accusation of TE.

I think both would require me actually continuing to edit the article content, something I haven't done other than to add tags in some time. I have not reverted any of their edits. When they reverted mine, I took it to the talks page. I did not escalate even when my text was reverted again. Every comment of mine has pointed to appropriate Wikipedia policy. I was the one who pointed to 3o.

I already warned you about wikihounding, and yet here you come in again on another random thread on a random page that I happen to be contributing to where you again revert my edits and disagree with me. Funny that this coincidence keeps happening. Edittttor (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we're at risk of this conversation devolving and moving in an unproductive direction. I don't know what happened on other pages, but I think many of us, including myself, have not acted in a perfect manner here. But also, it seems to me that nobody here has done something so egregious that it cannot be fixed. We agree there is room for improvement on this article. @Edittttor would you be ok with the idea of adding a political views section and updating with new information from the secondary sources that @EaglesFan37 found? I would rather not do this, since as you have pointed out, I have already done a lot on this article.

For me it would be great if @Aesurias, if you would be willing to start this process, as it seems to me that your hands are most clean here as of now.... Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

You just accused @Slava570 of WP:TE and are shocked when a third-party bounces that accusation back? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

A third-party would be fine, but I have talked to them about wikihounding me before, so they are not a neutral third party. Nor are you, obviously, but not because of wikihounding. Edittttor (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

By third-party I meant EaglesFan.

You tell Slava "...acting as the final arbiter of what should be included could potentially be considered WP:TE" and then act shocked when EF replies to you with "...If there is WP: TE here, it would go in both directions", calling it an accusation? (i.e. the thing you also just did?)

It's pretty clear that both of you have been edit warring (which is not simply defined by breaking 3RR etc.), however it's also clear that you both care about the article and are trying to be constructive to improve it (especially you), so lets move past the accusations and actually focus on the content.

It is clear to me from @Slava570's editing that they are unconsciously/unintentionally using weasel wording to list Fine's policies. They are a new editor (in terms of edit count) and this is completely understandable – it's likely they didn't even know what weasel wording was. Would both of you be comfortable with me trying to take a stab at rewriting the policies section, or otherwise do you know anybody who would do it instead? Otherwise WP:3O is definitely a good idea, solely so it can all be laid out. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Edittttor Laura Fine is on my Wikipedia Watchlist (along with a few dozen other politicians/members of congress) where I have seen reverts/contentious editing, because I tend to request page protection when the page keeps on having frequent reverts/contentious editing. Since I saw that WP:3o was discussed on the talk page, that felt more productive.

I looked at the article's edit history and saw that when @Aesurias and @Slava570 most recently edited the article, you immediately added a new tag to the page. and a WP:PROMO tag respectively . When @Slava570 conceded on some of the puffery and was seeking feedback, you accused them of WP:TE and that @Slava570 saying that a lot of the current sourcing issues will likely resolve itself since there will be more coverage from secondary sources since the election is approaching, you accused them of WP:ADVOCACY.

I think both would require me actually continuing to edit the article content.

You last removed content from the article two days ago .

When they reverted mine, I took it to the talks page. I did not escalate even when my text was reverted again.

@Slava570 has only reverted content once .

I was the one who pointed to 3o.

@Slava570 suggested a neutral party first, which you did conditionally agree to, but first inquired about a WP:COI. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37@Edittttor if you weigh in on whether you are ok with @Aesurias doing the next round of edits as proposed, we can at least move forward. Even if we end up arguing on the talk page, we could at least move forward on improving the article at the same time, so I urge both of you to just say yay or nay on that as part of your next reply... Slava570 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Laura Fine is on my Wikipedia Watchlist (along with a few dozen other politicians/members of congress) where I have seen reverts/contentious editing, because I tend to request page protection when the page keeps on having frequent reverts/contentious editing.

Before jumping into this conversation to oppose my edits and accuse me of TE, did you consider that I had talked to you very recently about wikihounding me across multiple articles?

Since I saw that WP:3o was discussed on the talk page, that felt more productive.They asked if it was possible to get a third opinion in here, and I am the one that pointed them to the 3o page to provide instructions how to do that. 3o is supposed to come from a neutral party. Did you feel that described you?

I looked at the article's edit history and saw that when @Aesurias and @Slava570 most recently edited the article, you immediately added a new tag to the page. [13] and a WP:PROMO tag respectively [14]

The user who started this talk thread should have added the NPOV tag themself. And even Aesurias said that versions have read as PROMO. So no, I do not see an issue with me adding these tags.

@Slava570 has only reverted content once [16].

Also here and here. That's almost 1/3 of all my edits on the page that they reverted either in whole or in part. They also reverted another user here. Edittttor (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Before jumping into this conversation to oppose my edits and accuse me of TE, did you consider that I had talked to you very recently about wikihounding me across multiple articles?

Already addressed that over a week ago (which you never responded too). .

Most of your recent messages on this talk page have either made accusations against me, @Slava570, or @Aesurias in a way that could possibly discourage/dissuade our participation. Adding new tags every time someone other than you added content, accusing @Slava570 of WP:ADVOCACY, WP:TE, WP:OWN, and WP:COI, accusing me of WP:Wikihounding after I defended @Slava570 after you made accusations against him, and

The user who started this talk thread should have added the NPOV tag themself. And even Aesurias said that versions have read as PROMO. So no, I do not see an issue with me adding these tags.

I think that @Aesurias was referring to the original state of the article, not the state of the article when the tag was added, but she can clarify that.

The diffs you linked about your edits aren't what I think you meant to send.

Going to step back from this talk page now. EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

after you made accusations against him, and

Accidentally had a stray and EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm also stepping back. Multiple people have now offered to assist after you have repeatedly placed maintenance tags on the article and you have brushed them aside to make accusations. I don't think continuing this conversation will get us anywhere. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

accusing @Slava570 of WP:ADVOCACY, WP:TE, WP:OWN, and WP:COI

I did not accuse them of COI, I asked them if it was the case because maybe they weren't familiar with the policy. They said no and I haven't brought it up again.

I do think their behavior does fit into WP:OWN and WP:ADVOCACY, and could be considered WP:TE. They have said they were a newer editor so I pointed them to those policies. Edittttor (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute for Third Opinion

This is mainly now a dispute between myself and @Edittttor. Two other editors were involved but have now said they are taking a step back. I would encourage whoever the third party is to be someone who is neutral on all politicians, political parties, and ideologies involved (especially the Israel/Palestine conflict and related issues such as AIPAC).

There are two maintenance boxes at the top of this page. One says there is an overuse of primary sources. There is discussion here about whether primary sources are allowed at all. A third editor also found a large number of secondary sources (you can find that comment by doing a page search for "health-related legislation." Sorry I don't know how to link it here). This editor also suggested that the page can be reworked so that, in line with other politician's pages, there could be section headings with specific issues. I agree with this approach, and I think these new secondary sources can largely provide a fix for this.

The second issue is possible bias. This is largely, but not exclusively, about the Israel paragraph. In my opinion, a previous edit made this paragraph read like a hit piece, and it dominated the whole congressional campaign section. I pared this section down, leaving two out of three main negative points in (more details above. I don't want to rehash the whole thing here). In addition, I added other primary sources related to other issues, which were challenged for being primary and for sounding like [MOS:PUFFERY]], although I think this is gray area.

Again, I think adding the new secondary sources can fix this to a large extent. Ideally for me, the Third Party Editor can look at the new secondary sources that were found and edit the page themselves to add that information in. It would be a good amount of work. However, I would also be happy if they just give their opinion on how to best proceed, and I am happy to put those sources in myself. Slava570 (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, it seems we don't even agree on why we need a third opinion. :P

The Israel/Palestine issue to me is not a part of the dispute. I don't believe there is disagreement about the current state of this section, but since that section could be considered part of the WP:PIA protected topic I don't want to get involved in that (and recommend that you do not either @Slava570) since neither of us are extended confirmed editors and should not be discussing it. My issue has been rather with the high number of primary sources from interviews with the candidate that this editor has added, defended, and reverted to. One of the remaining examples is, "pledged to work toward making the United States "100% reliant on green energy while creating union jobs.'" which I feel is not a NPOV statement and more an example of PROMO. Same with "is expert in insurance policy" which should be again supported by evidence (legislation proposed, educational background, professional training, etc.) and not its only source be an election overview.

I do think we're not far off from a satisfactory solution, but I would appreciate some outside assistance to get us there. Edittttor (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, OK, wow, that's good to know. In that case, I really feel like this can all just be solved by putting in the new secondary sources. There are two articles there related to the environment. I'm sure we will be able to find an alternative to the green energy line that will satisfy both of us. There are also a lot of healthcare articles. We might be able to find something there as well. However, for the record, I disagree about "expert in insurance policy." That was stated by a secondary source, and on top of that we attributed it to the source. Some politicians are experts on China or agricultural policy or constitutional law or whatever. It's a legitimate description of someone by a legitimate source... Regardless, why not just work on this ourselves. At minimum I can find something to replace the green energy line. What do you think? Slava570 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Edittttor As discussed above very clearly, I object to the edit you just made. You just said here that the paragraph on AIPAC was not contested. Because of this, we did not get a third opinion about it. Again, that is clear BAD FAITH editing. You prevented us from coming to agreement on this, and instead are pushing this edit without my consent, when we could have had someone look at it.

Your exact words: this paragraph is not a part of the dispute. I don't believe there is disagreement about the current state of this section Slava570 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, again, FYI statements like "without my consent" really point to WP:OWN again. That is not how Wikipedia works. You do not have to agree with every edit made, and the information that is there has two high quality citations so I do not understand why you keep removing it. What is your opposition to including it?

I believe I have demonstrated good faith by not removing the green energy comment even though you added it back in after three editors on this page said that it was problematic. I also removed the NPOV tag even though you seem to be trying to stonewalling potentially negative information from being included in the article, even when it is well sourced. I am open to undoing my contributions to the article, but I would like to know what is the opposition. Before you said it was because of length for that section, but now all of the other sections are longer and you added a whole other sentence to that paragraph. So what is the reason now? Edittttor (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu Sorry to bring you back into this. Would you mind taking a look?

I want to be clear. I do not own this page. What I am referring to is that we made an agreemennt. BOTH of us agreed that this paragraph was no longer contested. As a result of this agreement that you and I both made, we did not get a third opinion about this issue. You then went back on your agreement. We should leave the paragraph as it was, as YOU and I BOTH agreed to do. If you are now changing your mind that it did need a third opinion, that's fine. But then we should go back to getting that third opinion. Slava570 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify. One reason that I am against this new edit is that it is clearly not NPOV. It is written as if to imply that there has been deception. The previous version was a more straightforward exposition of facts. Slava570 (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

New article structure with political positions at end

Followed @EaglesFan37's advice and separated the political positions to their own section. I think they're right that it reads better and also matches the formatting of most other political articles. Edittttor (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Edittttor Article looks great! The healthcare section could possibly be expanded using some of these sources about legislation, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Glad that any disputes related to this page appear to be resolved. EaglesFan37 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)