Talk:2023 Spokane mayoral election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Nadine Woodward's partisanship[edit]

I'm not quite sure we should label Nadine Woodward with the Republican Party affiliation. Every source I've been able to find pertaining to her partisanship has made it clear she is intentionally nonpartisan. While she is very much a conservative, I don't think she's ever publicly declared herself a Republican. Even her own article acknowledges such: "Despite describing herself as nonpartisan, Woodward was supported by a number of Republican-leaning groups, and stated her opposition to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 United States presidential election." I think self-description should be enough to classify her as an independent. QuailWatts (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the actual source on the Clinton bit, what she actually said was that in an election where the two primary choices were Trump and Clinton, she did not vote for Clinton. The office doesn't require her to state a political party, but Woodward does have a political party affiliation, and saying "*it's not that other party I'm affiliated with!*" is not enough to avoid it, nor would doing all the things she's done even without having said that. Thankfully she has said that, so we don't even have to pretend she hasn't. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that one didn't vote for Clinton doesn't necessarily imply that one voted for Trump. For all we know, Woodward voted for Gary Johnson or Darrell Castle or even wrote-in Evan McMullin. I don't think that article is strong enough evidence without either an explicit confirmation from Woodward herself, or delving into speculation. Even then, voting for Trump does not make one a Republican. She has intentionally distanced herself from the Republican Party of Washington, explicitly to appear nonpartisan.

Compare to Ron Nirenberg, a mayor who similarly does not affiliate with a party in a constitutionally nonpartisan office. Even though he is very progressive and has been endorsed by the Texas Democratic Party, he is still ultimately considered an independent because he calls himself an independent. QuailWatts (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"voting for Trump does not make one a Republican"

Of course it does.

"to appear nonpartisan"

All the more reason for us to be accurate rather than swallow a lie.

"he is still ultimately considered an independent because he calls himself an independent"

No it's not because he calls himself an independent, it's because he calls himself an independent and, critically, has never apparently publicly endorsed a particular side. Woodward has.

Running for an office that doesn't require you state your political affiliation doesn't make a political affiliation disappear. It is not Wikipedia's task to reinforce as truth the complete fantasies some political candidates attempt to perpetuate in order to manipulate voters. Woodward is no more separable from her republican affiliation than Brown is from her democratic affiliation.

If you want to find someone to back you up here, you are obviously welcome to. Otherwise it would seem we're at an impasse. I would urge you not to bother, though, as what you are after is the assertion of the opposite of reality. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course it does."

No, it doesn't. There are many registered Democrats that vote for Republicans and many Republicans that vote for Democrats. John Kasich isn't a Democrat even though he endorsed Joe Biden, spoke at the DNC, and voted for him in 2020. The lines are a lot muddier than a simple "if they voted ___, then they must be ___" reasoning.

"he calls himself an independent and, critically, has never apparently publicly endorsed a particular side"

Ron Nirenberg endorsed Democrats Gina Ortiz Jones in 2020 and Beto O'Rourke in 2022. I don't think he's publicly endorsed any Republicans.

"It is not Wikipedia's task to reinforce as truth the complete fantasies some political candidates attempt to perpetuate in order to manipulate voters."

Ballotpedia, a similar encyclopedia, also reinforces the same "complete fantasy" of Woodward's nonpartisanship with the same right-of-center caveat, even though their whole goal is to inform voters on political candidates.

"Woodward is no more separable from her republican affiliation than Brown is from her democratic affiliation."

I would also argue that Brown is different from Woodward in that Brown has held partisan office and has run under a specific party every time, including her runs for state legislature and U.S. Congress. Woodward has not.

I believe it is out of the scope of Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature to try and read between lines and speculate on someone's partisan affiliation beyond what has been reported by news agencies or the state government. It is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to draw the line on what a "true Republican" is or is not or lump someone in with a party based on personal conviction. Michael Flynn was labelled as a Democrat throughout the Trump presidency because he never officially affiliated with the Republican Party until 2022.

I am more than welcome to appeal this argument to a third opinion. I'm even open to marking Woodward as independent with a footnote about her conservative beliefs. But ultimately, I believe the decision to presume Woodward as a Republican without concrete proof of her partisanship delves into WP:SPECULATION and is not upheld by any of Wikipedia's previous precedents. QuailWatts (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"John Kasich isn't a Democrat even though he endorsed Joe Biden"

You're describing an exception. He has a long affiliation with republicans and has made a singular exception. Woodward only has affiliation with republicans.

"Ron Nirenberg endorsed Democrats"

Well that does paint a picture, then.

"Ballotpedia, a similar encyclopedia, also reinforces"

See, what I get out of Ballotpedia is that they have clearly pointed out Woodward's hypocrisy on the matter. Anyway, we aren't Ballotpedia.

"I would also argue that Brown is different from Woodward"

Yes, Woodward had a real opportunity to actually be nonpartisan.

"speculate on someone's partisan affiliation"

Again, this is not speculation. There is a cited source.

"Michael Flynn was labelled as a Democrat"

Yeah, because he was publicly a democrat before publicly changing parties.

"I am more than welcome"

Yup. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement as to whether Nadine Woodward should be marked as independent/non-partisan or Republican):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on 2023 Spokane mayoral election and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I've more or less read all of the sources for this article and the 3 sources linked to the statement ... Woodward was supported by a number of Republican-leaning groups, and stated her opposition to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 United States presidential election at Nadine Woodward. It would appear the 2 most damning sources are [1] and [2], both of which report on a voice recording of Nadine speaking in some establishment.

Ultimately, I think marking her as Republican is in error. Wikipedia is not interested in the truth, it is interested in what reliable sources can be verified to say about a subject. I would say it's entirely fair to have substantial prose regarding Nadine's Republican connections, views, and the statements she has made. However, Wikipedia should not state in it's own voice that Nadine is affiliated with the Republican party without a source (which is an authority on the matter) that explicitly declares as such. Sources that very heavily indicate to most reasonable people that she is Republican, for the purposes of this encyclopedia, are insufficient in my view. —Sirdog (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred photo for Lisa Brown?[edit]

I've found two good quality images of Lisa Brown through the Department of Defense and was wondering which one should be used for the wikibox now that she is a candidate in the general election.

Option 1
Option 2

Option 1 shows more of her face while option 2 is a much better shot from the front instead of a side profile. I personally prefer option 1 because it is more identifying, though I am open to both. QuailWatts (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that option 1 is superior. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]