Talk:Hannah Dugan

Unverified campaign websites

I found what was probably her campaign website, archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20160323001113/http://www.hannahduganforjudge.com/ and her campaign's Facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/HannahDuganForJudge/ and her LinkedIn account: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hannah-c-dugan-28793b1b

But, because I cannot verify these, I will just put them here for now. (I found these while searching for a photo of her on a government website for the infobox) Mason7512 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant as those are primary sources. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I never intend(ed) to use them as sources, just as external links or an official website link. Mason7512 (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Objectivity

The article portrays the judges arrest as political. Liberals supposedly think it reflects Trump's authoritarianism. The case isn't political. The judge is accused of a felony. She will be disbarred, and she may or may not go to prison 76.16.131.53 (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Great. If you have a reliable source that supports that, please add. If not, then please find one. Remember (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The arrest is political, and a symptom of the USA's democratic backsliding into fascism. That is how all reliable sources characterize it, and that is how Wikipedia will cover it. If you don't like it, go to Conservapedia. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Not a single reliable source characterizes it that way. They only mention some see it that way without taking sides 24.113.87.67 (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree that *all* sources describe it that way, but there are many reliable sources listed in the article pointing out that this is a political arrest, including quotes from people in the administration. If you believe those sources are wrong, discuss them. In particular, you'd want to look for a source explaining why she was arrested instead of just making an appointment to come down to the station for a booking as is normally done for this type of accusation. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Gotta love the level of entitlement and delusion of this comment. It's universally know that Wikipedia is an extreme far-left echo chamber, but it's still baffling how blatant some of its users are about this. You don't even try to hide your agenda anymore.

This person committed a crime, and was arrested for it. If you don't like it, win the elections and make a change. DeadKom (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of this Talk page is to improve the article. It is not a place for political arguments.

Dugan has been arrested. Whether or not she has committed a crime is to be determined; she is innocent until proven guilty. We follow WP:BLPCRIME, which states, A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction..

There is a political discourse around Dugan's arrest and we should describe what that is, in a neutral manner, following WP:NPOV. Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's fault, or our fault, that your feelings don't agree with Reliable Sources. Being objective is not "far left".

And of course the arrest is political. Remember the times Trump was arrested, they didn't send people to drag him into jail, he made an appointment and came in on his own. That's how this kind of thing is normally handled (if we assume, for the sake of argument, that these laughable charges will stick). They made the deliberate choice to not do that to scare other judges. It is a political statement. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Split

Should the case against the judge have its own page where most of the details of the case are discussed and this page largely focus on the biography of the judge. Or maybe it’s too early to split things off. Just bringing it up for discussion. I’m happy either way. Remember (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is largely about her arrest, so I don’t think a split makes sense. I think the question is whether we keep this page as Hannah Dugan or whether it should be moved to Arrest of Hannah Dugan. Bondegezou (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I think things are fine as is for now. Splitting this article would leave her bio article as something of a stub and only something that people would realistically visit to further their knowledge on this arrest situation. Keeping things together here makes sense until, perhaps, she becomes less of a one-note public figure.

Regarding the name change, I figure making the title about this incident vis a vie Abrego Garcia would undercut her electoral and career history as a public figure. Trilomonk (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The article was created immediately after the arrest happened. Bio was added later. Subject is primarily notable for her (politically motivated) arrest. having two separate articles about her makes no sense. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow talk show as a source for claims in Wikivoice?

Source 22 is from a talk show, not from MSDNC's straight news reporting, and is used to source claims in Wikivoice, contravening policy.

The snippet "she would continue to arrest judges opposed to Trump's immigration policy" is also unsourced (or synth, depending on which way you want to look at it).

May be worth taking a look at. 82.131.225.171 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is not protected, so the edit button is available for you to click. Einsof (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of correcting the obnoxious section header. Don't do that again. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

MSNBC is a reliable source. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Current consensus on MSNBC can be viewed at Wikipedia:MSNBC, it is classified as reliable with talk shows being opinion pieces (see WP:NEWSOPED). If you want to object to this consensus, bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Mason7512 (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Find local news

search: "Hannah Dugan" site:jsonline.com

Also: protests about "Hannah Dugan" arrest

69.181.17.113 (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Joel Cano

Should we mention the arrest of judge Joel Cano around the same time, e.g. ? I see the two being linked in media coverage and by the Trump administration, e.g. . Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

New video of incident

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj0EGVePCBk Not sure if we can incorporate in some way but thought I would share. Remember (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hannah_Dugan&oldid=prev&diff=1296863569 was too wordy? RememberOrwell (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Added. RememberOrwell (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted you additions, as they constitute original research. There's no audio on the video itself, and the narration is the news channel quoting excerpts from the criminal complaint. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't make any, let alone all of my additions original research. Your claim that the narration is the news channel quoting excerpts from the criminal complaint is though. RememberOrwell (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The primary issue is this phrasing: "This is consistent with video of the encounter", which is original research. From WP:OR:

any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources

Your claim that the narration is the news channel quoting excerpts from the criminal complaint is though My "claim" comes from them using the phrase "according to the complaint" three times during the discussion of what warrant was needed and to speak with the Chief Judge. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, nice username! RememberOrwell (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Not bad yourself! Remember (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Claim unsupported by evidence

"Since 2019, a federal policy exists for ICE to refrain from making routine arrests at courthouses"

Three problems:

1. its direct source is a wiki article which doesn't support the claim:

"By July 2019, the lawsuit was being pursued by a coalition of district attorneys, public defenders, and other advocates. On May 22, 2021, the lawsuit was dropped after the Biden administration changed ICE policy to no longer make routine arrests at courthouses."

2. that wiki article sources a dead link

3. the quote uses the word "exists", which means "in the present", whereas, clearly, ICE no longer has such a policy 204.144.253.76 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the dead link in that article. I agree this material is unsourced and makes a woolly (and probably incorrect or now-meaningless) claim about ICE policy. Einsof (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hannah the "used to be a judge"

Her days as a judge are surely over due to her inability to obey the law like a judge should. Those aren't opinions, but facts. Source is being human and it is common sense. That'll be all. ~2025-42169-42 (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

What does stating this opinion have to do with improving this Wikipedia article? Talk pages are for improving Wikipedia articles, which are factual, not opinion based. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Backsliding of democracy

Hi, I would like to ask why this article is listed under "backsliding of democracy" category. I thought a jury of her peers delivered a verdict. ~2025-35113-26 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

This is probably better to be asked/requested on the template talk page: Template talk:Second presidency of Donald Trump. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

To clarify in article

Can we add a sentence or two of clarification to this article explaining why, if a judicial warrant was needed (but the ICE agents had only an administrative warrant), Dugan was arrested and charged? ~2025-31208-44 (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

This article says a judicial warrant was not needed. Can we clarify this in the article? Source: https://www.wpr.org/news/fellow-milwaukee-judge-testimony-irritated-abandoned-hannah-dugan ~2025-31208-44 (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Perspective on Notability and Relevance

Often, debates occur over putting “convicted felon” in the lede because frequently that status is not what people are noted for. See Donald Trump as an example of that. Despite this, her prosecution and conviction as a felon is precisely what Ms. Duggan is known for, including her (as found by a jury of her peers) aiding and abetting as an incumbent judge. For that reason, I have decided to re-add that detail to the lede. ~2026-41448-67 (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Read WP:FELON. It is rarely appropriate to do that, and this isn't an exception. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It is appropriate in circumstances where notability hinges on a felony conviction, as long as it is described differently from how I originally edited it, which I concede was poorly done. ~2026-41448-67 (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

And you've reached WP:3RR, to make substantially the same edits multiple times. I won't revert, because it's not an egregious BLP violation, but do not revert again, you will be edit-warring. Wait for consensus here, this article has a fair number of watchers, and I may mention this at WP:BLPN. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC)