Talk:Tudor Dixon

Missing information

This Bridge Magazine article has some information which doesn't appear here. For example, the article should include the candidate's birthplace, among other things. https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/tudor-dixon-what-know-about-republican-taking-michigan-gov-whitmer

Biased and hostile

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I find the article on Tudor Dixon biased and hostile. I have always appreciated Wikipedia as a source of unbiased information and tgis article is disappointing. You should remove partisan comments from your pages on living and active political figures. 2600:1007:B034:54A9:6CD0:2084:1D40:152A (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree 100% that article is completely biased 75.133.75.178 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this wiki write up is highly opinionated and slanted. Very poor use of wikipedia. 69.23.65.13 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The article appears intentionally framed to include mainly controversial political points that might be found in a smear campaign, while not including nearly any successes of the subject Tudor Dixon, political or otherwise. 68.37.90.29 (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This is clearly biased and a disappointing representation of Wikipedia. 2600:6C50:7C7F:D5BE:5CE:672B:D65D:E7D (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree that this article is biased and very hostile. Disgustingly so, and I'm no fan of Ms. Dixon. This is yet another example of why I no longer donate to Wikipedia. No matter side of the fence you're on politically, this article is not professional at all. Can we imagine what would happen if someone wrote an article about Michelle Obama, or similar, the way this one is written? It needs to be redone, properly. Here is her campaign page. Use it: https://www.tudordixon.com/about-tudor. This current article is demeaning to successful women on both ends of the political spectrum. 174.249.212.4 (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's amazing that there seem to be crickets in response to the bias of this article. And Wikipedia continues to go down the toilet. What a joke this has become.174.250.6.7 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, could a more flattering photo of her not be found? Come on! There are plenty on the internet where she is smiling. There is one in the USA Today article: https://news.yahoo.com/tudor-dixon-4-things-know-113407992.html174.249.212.4 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That photo isn't licensed compatibly, so no. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought maybe it was just me. Even after the edits, this is one of the most poorly, unprofessionally written articles I've seen in a long time. It still appears to be a smear campaign subtly endorsing her opponent out of fear. Regardless of the sources used, there is no balance whatsoever in this article, along with some "factual" statements that are clearly opinion of the writer without factual basis, or statements from sources taken out of context. As mentioned above, this type of article is exactly why I don't contribute to Wikipedia because the information is often unreliable and biased. There are glowing pieces out there of Tudor Dixon and her merits, but none of those characteristics are reflected here. Yes, maybe a few mitigating samples of issues are presented in a vain attempt to look somewhat unbiased, but they're severely inadequate to accomplish any ambition of neutrality, including superficial ambitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.32.122.221 (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You're very welcome to edit this piece! We always love having more editors join the common effort of wikipedia! Secarctangent (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I find Wikipedia to always take a negative attitude when it relates to a conservative. Your bias is totally evident. 2603:6000:DC01:8A33:ED85:CE1E:A20F:CB52 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Cant, i tried. My reliable sources arent yours. Apparently the speaker of the house and chair people of committies are unreliable. In this house anyways. Wikipedia is a joke when it pertains to anything about politics. 2600:1004:B1C2:857F:DD70:FA6B:D382:7EB7 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment: sentence in lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to include a sentence about Dixon's promotion of misinformation and conspiracy theories. The crux of this issue comes down to WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, and even discounting some weaker arguments, the arguments for inclusion do not outweigh those against sufficiently to demonstrate consensus. Although based on the strength of arguments a weak consensus to include is a reasonable conclusion, taking WP:BLP#Balance into account, as alluded to by Rhododendrites' contribution, brings this firmly into no consensus territory. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY arguments must take into account the totality of the body and maintain balance, not put forward a specific point without summarizing similar content. From what I've read here I feel that a summary of positions, rather than a single sentence giving prominence to a part of their views would be likely to achieve a firm consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the lede section include a sentence about Dixon's promotion of misinformation and conspiracy theories? ––FormalDude (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Notified: WT:WikiProject Politics, WT:WikiProject United States presidential elections, WT:WikiProject United States, WT:WikiProject Michigan, WT:WikiProject Conservatism, WT:WikiProject Media. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• No - Per WP:LEAD. The lead should be a concise overview of the person, and should be written with a neutral point of view. "Conspiracy theory" is mentioned in one sentence of the article, and "misinformation" isn't mentioned or implied once. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Explicit mentions about her support for conspiracy theories occurs TWICE in the article. First, in the COVID-19 section: "Dixon invoked a conspiracy theory that the COVID-19 pandemic was part of a plot that Democrats have planned for decades in order to topple the United States". The second instance, is in the Equal rights section: "She has promoted conspiracy theories that Planned Parenthood aims to control the black population and that the George Floyd protests were part of a scheme by Democrats to take down Donald Trump".
  

  In regards to misinformation, here is one citation for that: Dixon spreads misinformation about COVID-19 vaccine and schools, referenced in the Wikipedia article following this sentence in the COVID-19 section: Dixon has additionally falsely stated that the government is mandating vaccines for schoolchildren. And, in that cited news article it says: "This is not the first time Dixon has touted misinformation about COVID-19 and children. In 2020 episodes of the right-wing 'America's Voice Live' that Dixon co-hosted, Dixon claimed that 'our kids are not at risk' for catching COVID-19 ... She has falsely and repeatedly claimed on the show that there was 'no evidence' kids could transmit the virus, and that 'this is not a virus that affects the young students.' Although children face lower rates of hospitalization and death from the virus, COVID-19 is still currently the fifth leading cause of death for children younger than 5. And while children tend to be mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic upon catching COVID-19, they are nonetheless just as infectious to others."

  She has also repeated the lie that Trump won the 2020 election in Michigan. See this section of the article, which is of course backed up by reliable sources. So just a quick fact check here: Dixon's support for conspiracy theories are mentioned twice very explicitly, and her participation in the spread of various misinformation narratives certainly is implied. This seems like a pattern, not an anomaly. Hmm. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• No - What @Magnolia677 said...Asc85 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. A sentence about Dixon's promotion of misinformation and conspiracy theories would be summarizing three different areas of the article verified by a total of ten sources that are currently included in the body. The first area is her lies about the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the second is Tudor Dixon#COVID-19, and the third is Tudor Dixon#Equal rights. All of these are about Dixon's misinformation and conspiracy theories. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Politicians frequently make outrageous statements, and their words are often reported on by media. What is unfortunate is that a consensus of editors at Wikipedia permit the use of far-left media like MSNBC and NPR, but prohibit right-wing media like the New York Post (the 4th largest newspaper in the United States). After a while, these biographies start to look a bit lopsided. It would be POV and unencyclopedic to cherrypick this one particular bio just to find outrageous statements or behaviors to add to the lead. For example, read Hillary Clinton's lead, or better, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Hi Magnolia, you may not be aware, but the New York Post is not considered a reliable source, especially in the area of politics. Please see this RfC on the discussion and conclusions about the unreliable nature of their editorial practices and inaccurate coverage/lack of factual basis in their reporting. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly not cherrypicking to have a single sentence in the lede summarizing what amounts to more than twenty percent of the text in the body. But I see your complaints are closer to IDONTLIKEEIT. You should know your personal absorption of non-RS narratives has no place on Wikipedia and if you are going to be ignorant of facts and act like there isn't a difference between mainstream reliable sources and fringe, partisan sources, you shouldn't be editing in American politics. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

far-left media like MSNBC and NPR - Huh? Neither of these are even marginally close to "far-left". ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ser!: Is Tucker far right? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

By Tucker you mean Tucker Carlson, I presume? I wouldn't have described him as far-right, no, why? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You're saying MSNBC and NPR aren't "even marginally close to 'far left.'"? Seriously? Asc85 (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus that MSNBC and NPR are reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• No - This isn't important enough to be covered in the lead. This person is notable for being a politician. Being a high profile politician means there's tons of WP:RS on a variety of things the politician has said. By all means, those can be mentioned later in the article. If Tudor was known as a conspiracy theorist it could be justified in the lead, but she's not. At this time it's WP:UNDUE to be mentioned in the lead and for WP:BLP we should err on the side of caution. Nemov (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Any politician who pushes multiple conspiracy theories should be clearly noted as doing such, per reliable sources. They don't have to be known primarily as a conspiracy theorist; it is enough to say that they promote misinformation/disinformation in the lede. If they retract their statements later on, then I think a mention of it in the lede could be challenged, but as long as a politician holds on to conspiracy theory views, that should be made very clear to our readers, as it is in important fact worthy of mention. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• No Doesn’t appear to be a defining characteristic of her biography or life. Toa Nidhiki05 14:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral - Does it define Dixon? Will her stance on that matter, be the deciding factor in whether or not she'll be elected in a few days? Don't know. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes as with other politicians, when this is significant enough in RS it should be included. Andre🚐 16:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes per FormalDude and per the sheer quantity of sources covering her promotion of misinformation and conspiracy theories. I do also feel that the lede as a whole is too short and there should be more info on her political positions as a whole that have received significant coverage, but that's beyond the scope of this RfC. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Ser!: Sheer quantity? Then it would be helpful if you list them many of those here. I point out that I noticed that a few sources repeat verbatim the covid conspiracy statement of CNN. Thinker78 (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  As I stated above, there are ten already existing in the body of the article. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes per MOS:LEAD. The lead should summarize the body. If there are issues with any of the ten sources used to support the content in the article body, someone would need to make that case. Generalrelative (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I assure you this would not be done to a Democratic Politician in a similar situation. Whitmer promoted misinformation by claiming schools in Michigan were closed only three months by her. Of course, she was the governor and well within her power to stop the subsequent two years of school closures. Does that make you upset? Ok. People have different views on "misinformation," "disinformation," and "lies." It is inherently political. I think Whitmer lied to the people of Michigan strait up. Perhaps others may view Dixon's opposition to lockdowns and vaccine mandates as "misinformation." It should not be in the introductory paragraph. That is strait partisanship, and the vast majority of independent and reasonable readers will view it that way. It's the first step in a long road toward undermining the credibility of wikipedia in the minds of conservatives and open-minded independents, see the mainstream media. 2601:400:8001:2150:4CC0:4A1F:1712:95FE (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No. For the reasons stated above. 2601:400:8001:2150:4CC0:4A1F:1712:95FE (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not disinformation to claim that "they," democratic politicians, are seeking to mandate vaccination for children. The "public health community," whom Whitmer has supported thick and thin has strongly leaned toward child vaccinations, and that same group has been very aggressive in mandating it for adults (in fact permissive of terminations if an employee is not vaccinated). It should be of no surprise that this same group has supported and pushed the CDC to add COVID on the child vaccine schedule, which will be cited by local governments, schools, and perhaps states to mandate the vaccine among children, politics permitting. Governments will point to the CDC and the CDC will point back at the governments, claiming the schedule is merely advisory. Thus, while it may have been hyperbolic to claim child vaccines were becoming mandated, it was by no means out of the question that mandating vaccines for children was planned, supported by Whitmer, and likely to be put in place if the legal and political opportunity presented itself. Similar to saying Republicans would give tax cuts to the rich and cut entitlements, which I'm sure many Republicans on paper would dispute.

It is also not misinformation to claim that children are far less vulnerable to COVID and should never have been kept out of schools for as long as they were. It was obvious from the start of the pandemic that children were significantly less at risk; numbers from China and Europe were vastly disproportionate toward older populations. The vast, vast majority of health kids would not be threatened with death or serious conditions from catching the virus, even without a vaccine. It was "misinformation" for Whitmer to go before the public and promote the death of newborn with COVID, without mentioning the newborn had serious, if not life-threating, underlying conditions. That was strait fear mongering when the governor could have been moving towards reopening schools and allowing children to have more access to ordinary life. Was Dixon's comment overblown? Possibly. Let the voters decide.

All this to say, yes, I can fight you over keyboard on political topics that are complex, debated in the public square with a lot of loose language, misleading insuations, and a high amount of emotions. Lets not take shots at political opponents in the first paragraph of their Wikipedia page. If you support Whitmer and oppose Dixon, good for you. Vote on November 8. Don't use Wikipedia to advance your political position and delegitimize conservative politicians. 2601:400:8001:2150:4CC0:4A1F:1712:95FE (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• No, I don't think anyone would agree that she's primarily a conspiracy theorist, she's a commentator and businesswoman foremost. Seems like some editors are using Wikipedia policy to push their own personal agendas.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • A sentence that says she promotes conspiracy theories is not at all the same as saying she is primarily a conspiracy theorist. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

    A sentence about it is probably all that belongs in an article this size. Why would it be in the lead when the person is notable for something else? Nemov (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

    Because they are a politician and a public figure. If elected government officials are pushing conspiracy lies, disinformation, etc, then we the citizens who they serve should be informed about such problematic and concerning behavior, as their policy choices can have real world implications on our lives and well-being. Their thinking on these matters is significant. If reliable sources are reporting on it, then it is sufficiently worthwhile to be mentioned. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

    then we the citizens who they serve should be informed about such problematic

    This is a discussion regarding WP:BLP guidelines. You're arguments appears to trying to right a great wrong which isn't the role of a Wikipedia editor. Our job is to maintain a WP:NPOV. Nemov (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

    Nobody is talking about righting wrongs, what I am talking about here is a politician who has a well documented history of promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories. That should be mentioned in the lede, as it is also in the body of the article about her. According to this opinion article on MSNBC: "The Republican media personality, for example, has already said she believes Donald Trump was the rightful winner of the presidential election in Michigan two years ago, despite the actual results. The GOP candidate, making her first attempt at elected office, also recently balked when asked whether she’s prepared to accept the results of this year’s elections". She has a history of promoting Trump's big lie about the elections, and more. This is about her record as a politician, where she stands on the issues, and what reliable sources are saying. Further, she had a radio show in which she has repeatedly talked about this stuff, so it's no small part of what she has done in life, publicly and professionally, and I'm not sure how anyone can minimize that, or say that some mention of her past on-air career doesn't belong in the lede. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• No: This content would not conform to WP:LEAD. It is a seemingly random summary of some of the article's body, but leaves out substantial elements of the article's content. Marquardtika (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes per Ser and Generalrelative. starship.paint (exalt) 07:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
• Yes – Strong support for inclusion of a single sentence in the lede that states Dixon has advanced misinformation and conspiracy theories, per the reasoning of FormalDude & Generalrelative, above (that there are ten sources, and three specific sections in the article that discuss her promotion of false claims and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY).

Other Wikipedia pages about politicians also make mention of any promotion of conspiracy theories in the lede, such as the articles about Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Green. Meanwhile, articles about politicians like Ted Cruz also have similar statements in the lede, such as "Cruz received widespread political and popular backlash for objecting to the certification of Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election and giving credence to the false claim that the election was stolen from Trump". So there is precedent for this and it is warranted. We need to follow what reliable sources are saying, and placement of this information in the lede is relevant and important for our readers to get a clear understanding of the positions of a politician. Dixon should not be given a pass here, nor should any other politician, regardless of political affiliation. If politicians repeatedly promote conspiracy theories/misinformation or disinformation, then it should be made clear that they do so, and if it is detailed in the body of the article, then it deserves placement in the lede as well. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to cite WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY I would suggest reviewing MOS:LEADBIO. The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. A recent story during an election isn't a reflection of this person's biography. This isn't about "giving a pass" it's about following WP:BLP guidelines. Nemov (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

But we aren't talking about just one recent story here, we are talking about a history of numerous incidents over time, as mentioned in my comments above. MOS:LEADBIO also states: "relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm", and having ONE single sentence seems to be aligned with that, eh? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• No this is UNDUE for the lead. If this text were to be included in the lead I would expect sources to regular refer to this in their coverage, and since this seems to only be a few mentions in the very recent past this isn't indicative of their actions on the whole. Also per Nemov. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• No, especially not in its current state. This seems to be an example of a common pattern on Wikipedia, where editors try to include negative information prominently in the leads of articles about people they don't like. If the lead were multiple paragraphs covering various aspects of Dixon's biography and career, then maybe there would be more of an argument for covering the misinformation as part of that (though even then I'm not sure). But added to the current two-sentence lead it would be undue weight and show editorial bias. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Your speculation about the motives of editors supporting this content fails to assume good faith. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone in this discussion is acting in bad faith, and I apologize for giving that impression. I was just trying to point out that people's personal opinions sometimes color their perspectives on what information to emphasize in an article. It's hard (not impossible, but not easy) to edit neutrally on a controversial topic that one has a strong opinion about. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Also, whether the information to be added is "negative" or not depends on one's perspective. Most importantly, it is factual, backed by sources, and worthy of inclusion. Mx. Granger, why not expand the article with more background info then, if you feel the article is lacking in depth? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  If you or anyone wants to expand the lead (following NPOV), I would welcome that and would be happy to reevaluate and reconsider the question in this RFC. (By the way, in the future I'd suggest using Template:ping instead of Template:noping in a reply like that, to make sure the person you're mentioning sees it.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe, but more to the point, the lead should summarize the body. We have a big section on positions that mentions this stuff, and none of it is summarized in the lead. Perhaps if someone more thoroughly summarizes that section, it will look less like emphasizing one part of it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• No. If she was known for being a conspiracy theorist, then we could consider it, but this is not the case. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, based on coverage it's a significant part of her national notability. If people feel it doesn't have enough coverage in the body then we should expand coverage in the body; sources for that are easy to find. --Aquillion (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Question: I have a question to weigh neutrality. Is there any Democrat politician who has served in the government or who was the designated party candidate in an election, whose article in the lead has the accusation of being a conspiracy theorist or promoting misinformation? Thinker78 (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, AOCs lead contains nothing unflattering. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Does AOC promote conspiracy theories? If so, which ones? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of Kyrie Irving today. He's known for being a famous basketball player. He has a history (backed with many WP:RS) of making some odd comments. It's not mentioned in the lead nor should it. Nemov (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Basketball players and politicians are very different.

Politicians make policy and pass laws that impact our lives. As citizens, it would benefit us all to know which of these elected (or soon to be elected) public officials believe in and promote misinformation/disinformation and conspiracy theories. Their thinking on these issues may influence their policy choices, which may have very real and direct impact on our lives. Basketball players have no such power, and their beliefs on these things are a lot less relevant to the public at large. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, you're not making a biography of living person guideline argument. Wikipedia doesn't make distinctions based on occupation. Nemov (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about career differences. What politicians discuss is then reflected in their policy work, and it's more poignant in that regard, and this is their very work! How they go about communicating their ideas and attempting to influence others, this is a part of the job of a politician, and so her statements as a politician are relevant and are an informal part of her political platform. She has received a fair amount of media coverage about her repeated statements that involve conspiracy theories and misinformation, and that should be noted in the lede.

About the example of basketball star Kyrie Irving's antisemitism, well, I'm sure that if he keeps it up long enough (like Kanye West has), that it will then prove to be more of a defining characteristic, receive increased reporting and coverage, and thus become a bigger part of his Wikipedia article page (as is the case for Ye's page, it's reflected in the lede). For Irving and Ye, the lede is dominated by information about their respective careers because they are known for athletics and music, while Dixon is increasingly being known for her political activities, which largely involves the things she says and promotes. Does that make sense? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about career differences.

It doesn't matter since it's irrelevant in the WP:BLP guidelines.

About the example of basketball star Kyrie Irving's antisemitism.

He has a much longer history of odd statements beyond this recent example. It's not mentioned in the lead because he's known for being a basketball player. He's not known for being a conspiracy theorist. It's WP:UNDUE to mention in the lead. Nemov (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@98.155.8.5 Conspiracy theories? You mean suspecting wrongdoing by others? You want good citizens to never suspect their government, organizations, people if it's of a certain party or ideology? Well if that's your mindset, you are entitled to it. I certainly don't share it.

If reliable sources talk about conspiracy theories, well, it should be analyzed for inclusion if it's encyclopedic and complies with a npov. Thinker78 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: I think the question you have posed is a bit misleading, or is perhaps inverted. But agree that the answer could be helpful to the conversation.

It would perhaps be more useful to know FIRST if A) Are there any Democrat politicians who claim widespread voter fraud, sow distrust about the election processes, say they won't honor the outcome of an election before it has taken place, claim covid isn't real or that the vaccines have RFID microchips for tracking us and are designed by Bill Gates for purposes of global domination, promote QAnon conspiracy theories, talk about the rapture or the second coming of Christ, etc. etc., (are there Democrat candidates who say this stuff?) AND THEN SECOND if B) Are any of those Democrat politicians who did in fact promote conspiracy or misinformation, according to reliable sources, if any of them served or were the designated party candidate, does their Wikipedia article state in the lede anything about their conspiracy claims or promotion of misinformation?

First, we need to know if there are such Democrat politicians who promote conspiracies, THEN we need to see if their Wikipedia pages reflect such language and behavior. Does that make sense? If there are any such Democrat politicians who do make wild unfactual conspiracist claims, then YES of course that should be mentioned in the lede. We need to know who we can trust, especially our politicians, so if they are detached from reality then that's a pretty important thing to mention, right up front and center in the lede. We base this all on reliable sources and credible media reports, so if it's backed up with quality references, then so be it. No Democrat, Republican, or Independent politician should be spared. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The most comparable mainstream Democrat I can think of is Stacey Abrams, and this is mentioned in her article's lead: Abrams was the Democratic nominee in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, becoming the first African-American female major-party gubernatorial nominee in the United States. She lost the election to Republican candidate Brian Kemp, but refused to concede, accusing Kemp of engaging in voter suppression as Georgia Secretary of State. News outlets and political science experts did not find evidence that voter suppression affected its result. A federal judge ultimately ruled against Fair Fight in a lawsuit regarding the election. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@98.155.8.5 "Are there any Democrat politicians who claim widespread voter fraud, sow distrust about the election processes, say they won't honor the outcome of an election before it has taken place". Yes. I don't know if you remember the allegations that Trump was a Russian agent, that Putin stole the election, and how many people said they would not recognize Trump as president? I do remember. They probably had as much ideological basis for those suspicions as Republicans had for the suspicions against Biden.

Regarding covid and microchips, it wouldn't be the first time the government did illegal stuff secretly without the consent of people. Time will tell, maybe decades from now, if reliable sources will say whether those suspicions of microchips or other wrongdoings were accurate. Meanwhile, certainly per Wikipedia guidance we only include encyclopedic content reflecting what reliable sources state in a NPOV, not in an attempt to ridicule anyone's point of view. Thinker78 (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to ridicule Dixon. It's just a fact that she has spread misinformation and promoted conspiracy theories, and reliable sources agree on this point. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restoration of contentious info in place of neutral language

Summary

On 19:42, 17 November 2022, User:FormalDude made a revert with the single misleading explanation "fails verification". Said action reverted an edit I had made using neutral language that more accurately and objectively reflected Dixon's statement about covid-19 vaccines and the CDC guidance.

Restored language is not neutral nor accurate

I researched the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies beforehand and took my time in analyzing and also researching relevant reliable sources. The text I had modified and FormalDude restored reads, Dixon has additionally falsely stated that lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren.

I checked the source used for that text. The main relevant part reads,

Following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation Thursday to add the COVID-19 vaccine to childrens’ annual immunization schedule, GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon echoed false right-wing claims that the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children.

“A Dixon Administration would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list,” Dixon said in a statement Thursday. “Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process.”

As it can be seen here, Dixon did not state that "lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren". She stated, “Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children". Two different things. In addition, Dixon ECHOED "false right-wing claims that the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children". The key word here is echo, which has broader meaning than "to state" or "say".

According to Merriam Webster, echo (verb): 1a. "REPEAT, IMITATE", 1b. "to restate in support or agreement", 1c. "to be reminiscent of : EVOKE". We can see in the source that after writing that Dixon echoed false right wing claims, she is quoted to what she actually said. And she did not say that "the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children". She ECHOED that claim of the right-wing, Dixon saying in her own words, "Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process.” She used the words pushing and, in the other sentence, government overreach.

Reverted edit is more neutral and accurate

The reverted edit reads,

Also on October 2022, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, by unanimous vote, favored updating the recommended schedule of immunization to include Covid-19 vaccines. Dixon stated that her administration "would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list."

If we analyze both sources, we can see that Dixon issued her statement in response to the unanimous vote of the CDC regarding covid 19 vaccines. Therefore, the claim of FormalDude that this text "fails verification" is mistaken. Thinker78 (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Okay, so it passes verification. It's just blatantly misleading and a WP:NPOV violation. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude do you realize you are just seemingly making stuff up? Care to explain or you forgot how consensus is reached? I took my time explaining my opinion while you wrote one sentence without any explanation or apparently much care at all. You don't WP:OWN articles. So, kindly explain to us why you restored biased, inaccurate, contentious text into this article. Thinker78 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I also find the wording to be a bit misleading. Why not quote what she actually said/believes, that: "Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process", which is in response to a *recommendation* by the CDC, not a mandate. I think the language needs to be extremely clear that there is no mandate, so any allusions to fighting against a mandate are incorrect. She may of course be opposed to any possible *future* mandates, or believe that it is government overreach for the CDC to simply recommend a vaccine, but it just needs to be worded more clearly and in a definitive way, in order to avoid confusion.

This is complicated, in part because it appears to be a political "sleight of hand" by Dixon, to be speaking against a hypothetical mandate that does not exist (or to be depicting the CDC's recommendation as anything more than that). Without a very careful reading of the text, it is easy for these points to become blurred or for the meaning to become mixed up and confused. If this can be better clarified in the article then that would be an improvement, and potential solution to the NPOV issue, in my opinion. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with @Thinker78. The reverted edit simply explains what happened. It's not the editor's job to do original research. This is a biography supported by reliable sources and not a place for op-ed political speculation. Nemov (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nemov: All reliable sources show that Dixon has falsely alleged that COVID-19 vaccines were being mandated for schoolchildren. Changing the text in order to deliberately leave that out is a WP:NPOV violation. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the specific objection? Is something in Dixon's quote that is incorrect?

Dixon stated that her administration "would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list."

If this quote is correct then the quote should be used and not a characterization of the quote. Since this is being challenged using the quote should suffice per WP:BLPRS. Is there a WP:RS quote to support the claim? Otherwise we need to be careful about using sources that are editorializing even if they're reliable. Nemov (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Problem is, the quote itself is "correct" only in so much as that's what Dixon said. Unfortunately, the quote is incorrect (misleading/misinformation) because Michigan schools were not adding the covid vaccine to any "required list". So Dixon is either accidentally or intentionally misconstruing the situation, thus making it misinformation or disinformation, depending on things (and this is according to reliable sources, I'm not coming up with this analysis on my own here). There are THREE sources in the article in reference to this content. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Problem is, the quote itself is "correct" only in so much as that's what Dixon said.

Unless she said lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren I really don't understand the debate here. She either said it or she didn't. We have a quote where she clearly didn't say it. I kindly wait for a quote to support the "falsely claimed" editorialization. Nemov (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

From the first source: "GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon echoed false right-wing claims that the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children."

The second source contains two quotes directly from Dixon:

1. "liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process"
2. "Parents should be in charge of deciding if the COVID-19 vaccine is right for their child - not the CDC or Gretchen Whitmer's bureaucrats"

And the third source contains a quote from Dixon about Governor Whitmer in their debate:

1. "She was forcing the vaccine on people."

All of the sources refute these claims by pointing out that the CDC panel's decision does not mean that the COVID-19 vaccines would be required for anyone. Pretty clear who's really doing the editorializing here. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nemov: Please read the sources (linked/referenced in the Wikipedia article):

From the Michigan Advance article: "Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process." According to the article, this is untrue.

From the CBS Milwaukee article: "Parents should be in charge of deciding if the COVID-19 vaccine is right for their child - not the CDC or Gretchen Whitmer's bureaucrats ..." Ahem, parents *are* in charge. Not the CDC, and not Whitmer, or anybody else.

From the Bridge Michigan article: "Dixon's claim: 'She was forcing the vaccine on people. You remember her program, 'Vacc to Normal?' You could only get your liberties and freedoms back if you got your neighbor vaccinated.' ... The facts: Whitmer released her 'Vacc to Normal' plan in April 2021. It set milestones for reopening based on the number of Michigan residents 16 and older who received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine ... At no point did the Whitmer administration advocate for requiring COVID-19 vaccinations among adults or children ..."

FormalDude posted basically the same thing, just as I was writing this, but I'm posting it anyway for good measure. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me that Dixon isn't a moron, but there's still not a direct quote of her saying that lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren. The pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children quote is getting closer, but still not a claim that it's required. The other sources aren't about school requirements.

If there wasn't a direct quote of her saying she would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list I'd say roll with the source, but the quote exists and she doesn't make that claim. She's got plenty of other nonsense to cover though. Nemov (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You're arguing semantics at this point. All that matters is an RS explicitly said she made untrue claims about the COVID vaccine being mandated for schoolchildren. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

A source should back the information. But in this case it is not doing it. "Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children" is not the same nor backs the statement "Dixon has additionally falsely stated that lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren".

What source backs the information that Dixon has stated that "lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren"? Can you quote the relevant passage(s)? The contentious information is seemingly making untrue claims about what Dixon actually stated and for some reason it is not being removed, in violation of the arbitration ruling. Thinker78 (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider Gretchen Whitmer to be a lawmaker in a broad sense? In that context, Dixon's statement about Whitmer (and her administration), that "She was forcing the vaccine on people" fits with the statement above. Anyhow, FormalDude has offered different language below, that more directly addresses your concern. Thoughts? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Whitmer is not a lawmaker. She was a lawmaker. I am trying to summon my inner gymnast to see how can "lawmaker" be spinned to match Whitmer in the context of a possible false statement that she was mandating covid vaccines for schoolchildren.

Given that I have to try to see how it connects and gives me trouble to find a connection, I would say it is at least not straightforward information and misleading, even if you don't want to call it false. But as it is, said text doesn't make me think about a sitting governor, but about sitting lawmakers who have been lawmakers at least during the covid pandemic. Thinker78 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, it's confusing, and I think that sometimes the term "lawmaker" is used in broad strokes by some to basically mean anyone in government (major city/state/federal positions like governor, mayor, senator, etc), or even the administrations of such elected leaders etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Never heard such use besides referring to someone in the top legislative positions such as Member of Congress or representative. Thinker78 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be the correct usage. :)  Certainly media outlets should be conscientious with whatever terminology is being used, and not employ overly broad or confusing language. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I don't understand why the questioned claim that Dixon has additionally falsely stated that lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren is still in the page while it is being discussed whether it is accurate and appropriate or not.

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Principles,

In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Thinker78 (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No harm is being done, as the current text is sourced and accurate. WP:CRYBLP, which you should be well-familiar with by now, i.e. just because you say there's a violation does not automatically make it so. Zaathras (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you quote the relevant part of the sources that backs the text "Dixon has additionally falsely stated that lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren." So far no takers. She used similar language, but I am not aware that she actually stated that lawmakers were mandating the covid vaccines. She used the term "policymakers" and "pushing", which have different meanings altogether. Thinker78 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Btw, the ruling says "questioned". Clearly the information has been questioned. Also, just because you say there is no violation it doesn't automatically makes it so. Thinker78 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Other proposed language?

Okay, so maybe it would be better to collectively work towards language we can all agree on then, rather than debating this endlessly? Some greater context could be given, but then we're also looking at expanding something that is currently one sentence into many sentences, giving this small thing even more attention and page space than it had before etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Proposal 1: In an October 2022 statement, Dixon repeated false right-wing claims that the US government is mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren.

This should solve Thinker78's issue with "lawmakers" not technically being the same as "government", "liberal policy makers", or "Governor Whitmer". ––FormalDude (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to address my comment. Although I have to point out that I analyzed this information in my original post at the beginning of this thread. Regarding "forcing", the term is not the same as "mandating". Thinker78 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis."

Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

If we integrate this, we should seek at least two more reliable sources that don't use the same origin story about the A.false, B.right-wing, C.claim, D.that the US government (source doesn't specify US government, it only states "government") is mandating (present, future, past?), E.covid-19 vaccines, F.for schoolchildren.

Also we need to answer some questions about that info. When was that claim issued? Did someone in specific said it or is a reflection of several statements by different people or organizations? Is it the same claim or does it have variations?

For example, right wing senator Ted Cruz issued the statement, "“The CDC continues to make recommendations that ignore science, erode public trust, and target Americans’ healthcare freedom. Sadly, too many states will wield this recommendation as a mandate to force children to receive the COVID vaccine in order to attend school.

Maybe the writer of the article about the false claim misinterpreted some statements of right wing politicians? Does it the text of the writer of the article accurately reflect the issue? Thinker78 (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Another issue with proposal 1 is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Whether "right-wing" claims (are they only right wing claims?) are true, false, or misinterpreted is not only not clear but also what is known today can change. Therefore, it is better not to write such editorial bias as if it is a foregone conclusion but rather present the information as neutrally as possible in a way that has less chances to change in the future or to be wrong. Thinker78 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Proposal 2: In October 2022, the CDC favored updating the recommended schedule of immunization to include Covid-19 vaccines. Dixon stated that her administration "would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list."

A clear summary of the CDC's recommendation and Dixon's response to the recommendation. She never says required or mandate in regards to the CDC's recommendation so characterizing it as a false claim is misleading according to the quote's provided so far. Nemov (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• She never says required or mandate in regards to the CDC's recommendation? Are you off your ass? You just provided a quote where she says that practically verbatim, and more have been provided above. Tell me, what is "misleading" about my proposal based on a reliable source that says "Tudor Dixon echoed false right-wing claims that the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children"? ––FormalDude (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself to an increasingly hostile veteran editor, but I'll say it again... So far, no quote has been provided supporting that claim you seem focused on making. I don't care how WP:RS editorialized the quote. We have the quote and she doesn't make that claim. If you're unwilling to acknowledge the quote in contention then we're at an impasse and you can kindly quit arguing with me because we're just repeating the same thing over and over. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  So not only are you denying what is clearly said in the quotes, you're also denying reliable sources' analysis of the quotes in favor of your own personal OR interpretation. Glad we got that cleared up. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  Well, Nemov has also argued in other conversations that it is not our job to follow sources, saying "Editors don't follow sources, we follow Wikipedia guidelines." So I'm not sure where to go from here, if there is even disagreement about that basic principle. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  If they keep up that kind of behavior I can tell you exactly where I'll be going. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  I conducted a detailed analysis of the information in the source, which is how I started the thread, but apparently it hasn't been read by FormalDude. I don't understand then their exhasperation. Nemov's proposal 2 is certainly more neutral and accurate than proposal 1. Ideally, the readers should be able to come to their own conclusion as to whether the statement that we include is true or false. Thinker78 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  apparently it hasn't been read by FormalDude – In fact I read and directly responded to your "detailed analysis". ––FormalDude (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  I believe you didn't reply to me to refute anything but rather you just replied with a claim without an explanation, "Okay, so it passes verification. It's just blatantly misleading and a WP:NPOV violation." Thinker78 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Proposal 3: Following an October 2022 decision to include covid-19 vaccines on the CDC's optional immunization recommendation schedule, Dixon alleged that "liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process". According to Michigan Advance, the state "does not have a vaccine mandate for COVID-19 and unvaccinated children are not precluded from attending school"; the media outlet further noted that "This is not the first time Dixon has touted misinformation about COVID-19 and children".

Okay, thoughts? All of that is well sourced and factual. Yes, it is pretty wordy, but it gives context, directly quotes Dixon (the quote is supported by TWO sources!), and the Michigan Advance is credited as saying that Dixon has "touted misinformation", rather than saying this in wikivoice. Hopefully this can better meet everyone's needs. Feel free to offer suggestions for tighter and more concise language or whatever. :)  Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 Works for me. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the start of a nice compromise that even FormalDude likes. My objection is that if misinformation accusations are going to be included, then at least it should comply with a couple of policies in Wikipedia.

Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE,

If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Per WP:RSEDITORIAL,

Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source.

"Per WP:RSEDITORIAL,

Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Thinker78 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this, but I also wonder if all this prose is even necessary about a failed candidate for governor. This is a biography after all and it's not a very big one. It might be a better fit on the 2022 Michigan gubernatorial election article. The whole thing seems like overkill. It shouldn't be more than a sentence or two. Nemov (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a very concise one or two sentence thing about this would be nice, but it seems like we're having a lot of trouble coming to agreement haha. :)  Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Congress should take note how we reach consensus on a single sentence, let alone one thousand pages. In my opinion we are advancing well, with a few hiccups. Thinker78 (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ahahaha. Yeah, I actually appreciate being able to reach consensus with other editors, even if it is sometimes difficult. :) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that covid was the biggest thing affecting Michigan and the US. Her position about it as a commentator and former candidate is important, notable and its inclusion in the article is called for. In addition, her specific positions about the covid vaccine and the mandates are more important than the "she said she said" of the previous sentence about her children. Thinker78 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, and as has been mentioned by several others before, it would also be nice to expand the article in other ways, in regards to her other positions and fill out the content more. She will surely run again in the future, I don't think she's done with politics, this is probably just her beginning. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude @Nemov @98.155.8.5 On second thoughts, I think proposal 3 (as it is at the time of this writing) can work as a compromise edit. Any objections to include it in the article, replacing "Dixon has additionally falsely stated that lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren"? Thinker78 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It's still way too long, but it's an improvement. Nemov (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

No objections, fine with me. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I still support proposal 3 as a compromise. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Implemented. Diff. Best regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thanks!! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Election views

This content is very clearly verified by this source. The very first sentence of the source reads "In a shift from the position she took during a candidate debate in May, Republican gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon would not say during a national TV appearance Sunday whether she thought the 2020 presidential election was stolen." Marquardtika (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Calling that a shift in her position is quite the stretch, and I doubt any other sources describe it as one. Hence why I adjusted the sentence to only state the objective facts. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem was that you were equating "shifting her position" with "changing her mind". Don Bolduc tried the same stunt, screaming every moment that 2020 was stolen during the Republican primary, then running to the middle in the general election. It is a tactic as old as politics. Zaathras (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The source literally says "In a shift from the position she took..." Marquardtika (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Meaning "she said something different than last time". It does not indicate a change in belief. Zaathras (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Who said anything about a change in belief? I added content that said she "shifted her position". The language exactly mirrors the source. That's Wikipedia 101. Marquardtika (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)