Talk:Paul V. Malloy

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. 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. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Malloy has interjected himself into a situation and made an autonomous decision to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin voters in the runup to a presidential campaign in a swing state. When I googled his name, "judge," "Wisconsin" and "voters" I got 8,500 hits. There's a very good chaqnce his decision will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm going to add to it later today. It's a stub article, but there are probably millions on Wikipedia that are shorter and have been intact and dormant for years. Why do you think it should be deleted?) Activist (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (I and hopefully others have been adding to it as the judge involved in the purging of hundreds of thousands from voter rolls rises to national prominence as a result of his order and its appeals.) --Activist (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rothschild who weighed in on the Wisconsin voter purging case was for 20 years the editor of The Progressive, a magazine which has been focused on Wisconsin and national politics for 111 years. Activist (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for this new article. As an appointed judge, Malloy is eligible for a Wikipedia article, but in its current state the article is very heavily focused on criticizing him and his allies. Noting his controversies is legitimate, but the article was written with too much commentary from the author's point of view.. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsdayer520 I appreciate the feedback. I believe your concerns deserve an adequate explanation. I corrected a spelling error, removed "curly" quotes and apostrophes, per Wikipedia policy, and reviewed the existing text. After doing so, I made a number of edits to clarify the issues involved. I'll possibly go further in the event recent intervening issues should be included in the article.

Molloy's behavior, both interpersonal and judicial, have been central to a rather extraordinary situation. Since I wrote the body of the article, there have been additional related issues that have drawn national attention. The most prominent has been the crushing defeat for reelection of the dominionist Justice of the State Supreme Court which drew international media coverage due in part to an escalating situation involving deliberate disenfranchisement of specific voter demographics: Urbanites, in particular ethnic minorities, and registrants who live in college towns. The election this month that removed the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Chief Justice achieved widespread notoriety because it came in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. and the closure of all but five of Milwaukee's 180 regular precinct voting venues. Despite the striking of almost a quarter of a million voters from the rolls, and intentional causation of extremely long lines and the visible import of surgical-masked voters waiting outside polling venues who intended to cast ballots in what would have otherwise been an obscure election. Those angry voters responded by their extraordinary determination to cast their ballots. Molloy's actions could not be justified by any rational circumstance, but rather his election intervention was generated by his simultaneous hyper-partisanship epitomized by his ruling. The volatility of his adversarial interactions with another judge were an extraordinary departure from normal judicial temperament and behavior on the part of both who were involved. Both issues deserve a description that is faithful to the sources. The process of disenfranchisement doesn't have the Sturm und drang of Fort Sumter, nor the extraordinary consequences of the disenfranchisement of 50,000 heavily Democratic Florida voters in 2000, but I think this will be seen as historical event and Wikipedia readers I believe, deserve an accurate and what I think is a NPOV view of a remarkably fractious occurrence. Thank you for the questions you've posed and I hope I've sufficiently answered them. Activist (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The closing of so many polling places in Milwaukee was portrayed by comments from many observers that it was done to intentionally discourage voters. Although it likely had that effect, the main problem is that those with experience as poll workers were mainly seniors who worked briefly each election year, one or two days perhaps, who were discouraged by the pandemic particularly as they were in high risk groups due to their ages, and the city with its Democratic governance was unable to find sufficient willing workers to maintain more polling locations. Politifact analyzed the situation very carefully to come to that conclusion. Activist (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"law degree"

"[A]ssertion, in a BLP page, of type of law degree unsupported by the cited ref. (Was it really a J.D., or did he earn an LL.D., a D.L., or an S.J.D.?)" You should have read the cited ref. The cited ref. actually does support the assertion that the degree is a J.D.: "Law School Attended: John Marshall Law School, J.D., 1985" By the way, the LL.D. and D.L. are not existing earned American degrees, and while the S.J.D. is an existing earned American degree, it is only awarded as the third degree in law.2601:205:3:DEE2:9928:5EBC:17A4:A18A (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before you run off the rails with this, please read—carefully—what I (and some others) have written to you. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm wondering whether or not Martindale is a reliable source for a BLP page (since it's essentially self-published information). Hmmmmmmm... — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Now that I'm thinking about it," an enormous amount of biographical material, such as official government biographies, and newspaper articles based upon campaign biographies, is "essentially self-published information." What information readily available on the web would not be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:3:DEE2:7804:63C2:90:54C3 (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]